Auras

[aumgn]

Hello. This is my first post :D

I found a pretty old topic about auras here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22462&perpage=40&highlight=aura*&pagenumber=1) but it was pretty bloated and old so figured I should start a new one.

What I'm wondering is, is there a universally accepted "skeptic" position on what the aura is/isn't, as well as what accounts for the colors in Kirlian photographs?

http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian4.gifhttp://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian2.gif
http://www.tachyon-energy.com/images/aura.jpg


As The New England Skeptical Society says (http://www.theness.com/pseudo.html#Kirlian%20photography), "There is no doubt that Kirlian photographs themselves are not fakes; they are photographing something, the question is exactly what are they capturing."

I've read the skeptic positions on Kirlian photography, most of which deal say the colors result from a "Corona Discharge".

From http://www.netasia.net/users/truehealth/Kirlian%20Photography.htm:
Furthermore, there’s nothing supernatural about Kirlian photography. The manner in which it’s done can be explained by natural means. Scientists say the size and shape of the aura doesn’t correspond to a person’s health, mood or attitude but is produced by fluctuations in high-frequency current. The image on film is actually a corona discharge, a natural electrical phenomenon like the one found in flashes of lightning.

Gary Poock and Paul W. Sparks reported in Smithsonian magazine that there are at least 13 factors that can influence the Kirlian image. These include voltage level, voltage pulse rate, moisture, atmospheric gasses, the internal force and angle of the object held against the film, and barometric pressure. In effect, a single person can come up with different auras simply by changing finger pressure and the amount of moisture found in his or her skin. The more moisture there is, the larger and more colorful the auras are.

"Living things (like the commonly photographed fingers) are moist. When the electricity enters the living object, it produces an area of gas ionization around the photographed object, assuming moisture is present on the object. This moisture is transferred from the subject to the emulsion surface of the photographic film and causes an alternation of the electric charge pattern on the film. If a photograph is taken in a vacuum, where no ionized gas is present, no Kirlian image appears. If the Kirlian image were due to some paranormal fundamental living energy filed, it should not disappear in a simple vacuum," explained Terence M. Hines, a psychology professor, in Pseudoscience and the Paranormal.

"That the Kirlian image is enhanced by emotional arousal can also be easily explained by the presence of moisture. A basic physiologicasl response to arousal is sweating. Thus, aroused individuals will have greater moisture content on their skin surface and the greater amount of moisture will produce a larger Kirlian image," added Hines, a consultant of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

Until Kirlian enthusiasts come up with better equipment, more rigid standards and more convincing proof that auras exist, don’t waste your time and money on them. For now, the auras they produce are, at best, works of art that belong in a museum - not in a hospital.


That webpage also says that "Kirlian photographs are made by placing an object directly on photographic paper or film laid atop a metal plate to which high-voltage current is applied." So is this guy saying that the "corona discharge" is caused directly by the electrical current's effect on the body's moisture? Thus the colors surrounding a person's head are not actually present there and just invisible to the untrained eye but actually just show up on the image due to the electricity?

My central question is, does the "corona discharge" explanation rule out the possibility of there existing an actual aura around the human body, rather than just an illusory but actually nonexistent one displayed only as a result of the Kirlian photography process?

Where do you all stand on the topic of auras in general?

[SteveGrenard]

If you are researching this, you might also want to try searching: GDV or gas discharge visualization.

Here is one paper on GDV (a proposal) from researchers at the NIH (National Institutes of Aging):

http://www.siib.org/GasDischargeVisualization.asp

There are a few abstracts in MedLine on this technology also.

[patnray]

Originally posted by aumgn

My central question is, does the "corona discharge" explanation rule out the possibility of there existing an actual aura around the human body, rather than just an illusory but actually nonexistent one displayed only as a result of the Kirlian photography process?

Where do you all stand on the topic of auras in general?

First, welcome to the forum.

All methods of "photographing" supposed "auras" involve manipulating the film in some non-standard way to produce the effect seen when developed. Proving that the photgraphs have a perfectly ordinary explanation does not prove that there could not be an "aura". It only proves that the alleged technique for photographic them is demonstrating some other effect, not "auras".

IMO, it is highly unlikely that people are surrounded by normaly invisible (and undetectable) fields or auras. Science has been able to measure and characterize, in exacting detail, forces and energies that are well beyond detection by the human senses (such as the strong and weak nuclear forces, which operate over distances smaller than atoms).

If I claimed that the government has implanted microelctronic devices in all of us to control our thoughts, and I showed you a bag of discarded silicon "chips", would you accept that as proof of my claim? The pictures you provided show only that something affected the film. It is just as huge a leap from the pictures to proof of an "aura" as it is from silicon chips to proof that the government is controlling our thoughts...

[aumgn]

My next question, for those who do not acknowledge the existence of an aura around the human body, would be how would one explain "auric vision"? Many people have described seeing a hazy outline extending about an inch from their hand or some such body part. This is explained in "woo woo terminology", if you will, as being the first layer of the aura, also called the etheric layer. The colors seen in Kirlian photography comprise the second, or emotional layer. As one of those above webpages acknowledged, emotions do affect what they are calling the "corona discharge".

I personally can attest that a hazy field (or, the "etheric" layer of the aura) is visible extending an inch all around the body of myself and others, because I have seen it and can see it at any time. My original ability to perceive this layer was minimal, but since practicing exercises to develop "auric vision" it seems much more tangible, and I don't need to relax my eyes or get in a calm state to see it. Assuming I'm not lying about what I'm seeing ;) , is there a scientific explanation for an indistinct hazy layer extending ~1 inch away from the body? I'm quite sure I don't have a vision disorder. :)

I cannot personally attest to the existence of the colorful, or emotional, layer of the aura, as I have never seen colors, but based on the following experience I had, in tandem with the claims of countless others who can say they can see the emotional layer, its existence seems likely:

A very psychically sensitive girl came to a meeting of a Reiki club I belong to (for those who don't know, Reiki is definitely "woo woo"). She is the only person I know who has felt physical pain during a Reiki session (though since receiving an attunement has not felt it since). I was talking about auras, something she expressed curiosity in, and said that all her life she had seen colors around people's heads, which she had chalked up to being a vision defect or something (she wears glasses). Based on her descriptions of what she saw, it was evident to me that she wasn't seeing full Kirlian photograph-sized color splotches around the head but spots of a smaller scale (as she had never developed, or even acknowledged, her natural ability to perceive auras). She, who had never read any books about auras or what emotions the colors correspond to, proceeded to say what colors were around the heads of everyone present. Her disparate descriptions of what colors were attributed to whom dovetailed with what I knew of color correspondences and what I could surmise of each person's emotional state. For example, she said green and purple were around my head, which made perfect sense since I had just given a Reiki treatment.

I knew that people who start seeing colors of the aura see blues first and reds only after they've developed their vision to a higher level, because of the electromagnetic spectrum. I asked the girl if there were any colors she never saw when she looked at people's auras, and she said orange and red.

Does she have electricity shooting out of her eyes causing my head to emit a corona discharge? ;)

My personal experiences seeing a hazy glow around people's bodies and testing my book knowledge of auras against a girl who claims to see colors are in accordance with what is commonly known (in "woo woo" circles) of auric anatomy, and thus lead me to "believe" that auras surrounding humans (and some other forms of life and matter, to varying degrees) do, in fact, exist.

If/when my auric vision progresses to the point where I can see the emotional layer of the aura, I may figure out some way to demonstrate it scientifically to such fine skeptics as all of you. Perhaps I could use colored pencils to sketch an auric portrait of someone then take that person's picture with Kirlian photography; if my drawing is the same as the photo, dontcha think I'd win a million bucks? Cha-ching. But don't the rules of the contest say you have to prove something paranormal? I don't see auras as paranormal, just something science has yet to acknowledge. Well, I won't tell Randi that. :cool:

From what I've read, developing auric vision consists mainly of gaining subtle control over how much light your irises admit. Or something. For an excellent, scientific book on developing auric vision which is also blissfully absent of New Agey fluff, check this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0958670056/qid=1073354986/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5928405-4753724?v=glance&s=books) out.

Cheers.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by aumgn
My next question, for those who do not acknowledge the existence of an aura around the human body, would be how would one explain "auric vision"?
Fraud.

Or self-deception (http://www.skepdic.com/selfdeception.html).

Or paranormal interpretation of natural phenomena (http://www.skepdic.com/tart.html).

[xouper]

aumgn: ... don't the rules of the contest say you have to prove something paranormal?Claims of auric vision have been accepted for the JREF challenge. Reiki claims are also elligible. Go for it.

[Ratman_tf]

Welcome.

Originally posted by aumgn
Where do you all stand on the topic of auras in general?

I doubt they exist for various reasons, but would be willing to consider the possibility if they were objectivley tested for.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by aumgn
Perhaps I could use colored pencils to sketch an auric portrait of someone then take that person's picture with Kirlian photography; if my drawing is the same as the photo, dontcha think I'd win a million bucks? Cha-ching.
I dont think that would be a valid test. Kirlian "photography" is a form of photographic manipulation, but I wouldnt call myself an expert on the subject.

From Skepdic.com - Kirlian Photography (http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html):
Allegedly, this special method of "photographing" objects is a gateway to the paranormal world of auras. Actually, what is recorded is due to quite natural phenomena such as pressure, electrical grounding, humidity and temperature. Changes in moisture (which may reflect changes in emotions), barometric pressure, and voltage, among other things, will produce different 'auras'.

<blockquote>Living things...are moist. When the electricity enters the living object, it produces an area of gas ionization around the photographed object, assuming moisture is present on the object. This moisture is transferred from the subject to the emulsion surface of the photographic film and causes an alternation of the electric charge pattern on the film. If a photograph is taken in a vacuum, where no ionized gas is present, no Kirlian image appears. If the Kirlian image were due to some paranormal fundamental living energy field, it should not disappear in a simple vacuum (Hines).</blockquote>

There have even been claims of Kirlian photography being able to capture "phantom limbs," e.g., when a leaf is placed on the plate and then torn in half and "photographed," the whole leaf shows up in the picture. This is not due to paranormal forces, however, but to fraud or to residues left from the initial impression of the whole leaf.

But if you want to take the challenge, I will be behind you the the whole way through (though not entirely optimistic)...

[plindboe]

aumgn,

Can you describe the method you use to see people's aura's with your own eyes?

On the two pictures you posted, the color changes(Yellow->Red & Red->Green). Why is that? Does auras always have a different color around people's heads?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by xouper
Claims of auric vision have been accepted for the JREF challenge. Reiki claims are also elligible. Go for it.

How would you test somebody's claim to see auras?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


How would you test somebody's claim to see auras?

I've been pondering this myself. Two ideas came to mind.

If the auras are visible in darkness, have a room with no lighting. Bring the seer into the room and have them detect how many (if any) people are in the room by their auras.

If the auras are visible through light (but no too light) cloth, (and you'd think they are if they can appear through clothing) have the seer try to detect people through a blanket or perhaps thin cardboard.

Both are rife with technical details that may spoil the experiment though. That's just what I've come up with tonight without putting serious skull work into it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by aumgn
My next question, for those who do not acknowledge the existence of an aura around the human body, would be how would one explain "auric vision"?


As others have said, the simplest explanation is that you are lying. This is the explanation I favour for the people who claim to be able to see large, multicoloured auras.

Assuming you are telling the truth, the simplest explanation is that you have fallen victim to some combination of wish-fulfillment and optical illusion. Sorry. :)


I personally can attest that a hazy field (or, the "etheric" layer of the aura) is visible extending an inch all around the body of myself and others, because I have seen it and can see it at any time. My original ability to perceive this layer was minimal, but since practicing exercises to develop "auric vision" it seems much more tangible, and I don't need to relax my eyes or get in a calm state to see it. Assuming I'm not lying about what I'm seeing ;) , is there a scientific explanation for an indistinct hazy layer extending ~1 inch away from the body? I'm quite sure I don't have a vision disorder. :)


It's hard to tell exactly what you are seeing, so I can only make a few guesses.

Firstly, you might be unfocusing your eyes a trifle. This is easily done with practise, and is not a supernatural ability. One test for this explanation would be to see if you can perceive the aura when you are sharply focused on the object in question, and whether you can see auras at long distances as well as short ones.

Secondly, our brain naturally emphasises distinct objects in our vision, making them seem more distinct than they "really" are by editing the brightness of their surroundings. If you look for it you can see it, and it's a bit weird. Some optical illusions rely on this effect. It's possible you are mistaking a natural image-editing function for a superpower.

Thirdly, if the aura is as you describe it you should be able to see it in the dark, right? If you cannot use it to detect someone in pitch darkness, it seems that you are not seeing auras generated by the human body at all. You are seeing some kind of distortion at your end, rather than an energy from their end.

Fourthly, if the aura is a biological phenomenon you should be unable to get a similar effect from inanimate objects, storefront dummies and so on. Try it and see if you can see a dummy's aura.

Lastly, a very strong test would be to do a blind study with a partner where they tested your ability to detect a hand or other body part that you cannot directly see, seeing only the aura it emanates. If you can do this under conditions such that you cannot be picking up other clues to help you, then you have a superpower and the million will soon be yours!


A very psychically sensitive girl came to a meeting of a Reiki club I belong to (for those who don't know, Reiki is definitely "woo woo"). She is the only person I know who has felt physical pain during a Reiki session (though since receiving an attunement has not felt it since). I was talking about auras, something she expressed curiosity in, and said that all her life she had seen colors around people's heads, which she had chalked up to being a vision defect or something (she wears glasses). Based on her descriptions of what she saw, it was evident to me that she wasn't seeing full Kirlian photograph-sized color splotches around the head but spots of a smaller scale (as she had never developed, or even acknowledged, her natural ability to perceive auras). She, who had never read any books about auras or what emotions the colors correspond to, proceeded to say what colors were around the heads of everyone present. Her disparate descriptions of what colors were attributed to whom dovetailed with what I knew of color correspondences and what I could surmise of each person's emotional state. For example, she said green and purple were around my head, which made perfect sense since I had just given a Reiki treatment.


The simplest explanation is that this girl is an attention-seeking fraud. "Ooh, is that really what all the books say aura vision is like? Wow, I never imagined that!". Since no one has ever demonstrated "by the book" aura vision under conditions that exclude fraud, I think it's highly unlikely that she has a real superpower that lines up exactly with the book. It's far more likely she has read the same books you have and is lying.

I find the idea that a serious woo-woo who sees coloured spots around people's heads had never encountered the idea of auras before fairly hard to take. Your mileage may vary.

This also handily explains the pain she felt in a Reiki class. She felt like getting some attention and being the center of some drama, so she put on an act. People do that, and in fact such people are by all available evidence more common than people with genuine superpowers.


My personal experiences seeing a hazy glow around people's bodies and testing my book knowledge of auras against a girl who claims to see colors are in accordance with what is commonly known (in "woo woo" circles) of auric anatomy, and thus lead me to "believe" that auras surrounding humans (and some other forms of life and matter, to varying degrees) do, in fact, exist.


As I hope I have shown, the evidence you have at the moment does not justify this conclusion. More data might do so, or might justify discarding that conclusion.


If/when my auric vision progresses to the point where I can see the emotional layer of the aura, I may figure out some way to demonstrate it scientifically to such fine skeptics as all of you. Perhaps I could use colored pencils to sketch an auric portrait of someone then take that person's picture with Kirlian photography; if my drawing is the same as the photo, dontcha think I'd win a million bucks?


I saw Randi on telly a long time ago testing a woman who claimed to be able to see auras that extended a foot or so around people. He lined up ten or twelve booths that were just tall enough to hide volunteers, and asked her to determine which booths held a human and which were empty. She had a bold guess, but flopped completely.

A very similar protocol could quite easily test your current claimed ability, to see auras an inch around people. There would just have to be better controls to stop you peeking around the booth or whatever. You don't need a more developed power - what you have is plenty to take the million, if it's the real thing.


Cha-ching. But don't the rules of the contest say you have to prove something paranormal? I don't see auras as paranormal, just something science has yet to acknowledge. Well, I won't tell Randi that. :cool:


Anything that takes the million will, almost by definition, no longer be considered paranormal once it has won. But since your claimed power is considered supernatural at the moment, the money's all yours. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

I think that if a person can see auras, they should be able to tell if a person is diguised or not. Then again...... with claims as these, there is always the out. "Skeptic energy" interfered with my ability.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


How would you test somebody's claim to see auras? It has been done. Randi mentions it somewhere. You place a screen between the aura seer and the other person, so that the seer can only see the aura extending above the screen. Now, as long as the seer knows when there is a person behind the screen, he/she can see auras, but if he/she is not informed if there is a person or not, he/she reports auras being visible or not independently of there being a person or not.


Now, aumgn:


My next question, for those who do not acknowledge the existence of an aura around the human body, would be how would one explain "auric vision"? Many people have described seeing a hazy outline extending about an inch from their hand or some such body part. *snip*I personally can attest that a hazy field (or, the "etheric" layer of the aura) is visible extending an inch all around the body of myself and others, because I have seen it and can see it at any time. *snip* I'm quite sure I don't have a vision disorder.

No, in fact it shows you have normal vision. Our eyes have a terrific dynamic range (although some animals do even better), this is partly achieved by our retinas having variable sensitivity. Try to stare into a red lamp for a minute or so. Now look away, and the world looks green. This is because your retina has tuned down its sensitivity for red. Now, place a dark object on a white surface and stare at one point of the object for a minute, then loook at a gray surface; now you will see a negative (light) image of the dark object for a few seconds.

This ability would tone every image you looked at down to gray, if it wasnt for one thing: Unless you concentrate hard on staring at one point (and even that is difficult), your eyes constantly move a little, thus keeping this autogain feature from overreacting. This means that if you look at an object, especially on a contrasting background, you will see a sort of halo around it, an "afterglow" of the image that is being moved slightly around on your retina.

Make this test: Look at your hand and watch the 1inch "aura". Now look at some person who is, say, 20 ft. away. If the "aura" was real, you would only see it as very thin, but it still looks 1inch thick, because it only exists on your retina.

*snip*

A very psychically sensitive girl came to a meeting of a Reiki club I belong to (for those who don't know, Reiki is definitely "woo woo"). She is the only person I know who has felt physical pain during a Reiki session (though since receiving an attunement has not felt it since).

So, speaking diplomatically, you would agree that she was not a "normal" person?

*snip* For example, she said green and purple were around my head, which made perfect sense since I had just given a Reiki treatment.

Only makes sense if you believe in Reiki woowoo :rolleyes:.

I knew that people who start seeing colors of the aura see blues first and reds only after they've developed their vision to a higher level, because of the electromagnetic spectrum.*snip*

That is plainly nonsense. Two reasons:

1) No normal person has a problem seing the red part of the spectrum, so why should it suddenly be a problem with auras?

2) Whatever auras are, they are NOT a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If they were, we could detect them with measuring instruments.


Does she have electricity shooting out of her eyes causing my head to emit a corona discharge?

I rather think the electricity goes to her brain :rolleyes:.

*snip* But don't the rules of the contest say you have to prove something paranormal? I don't see auras as paranormal, just something science has yet to acknowledge. Well, I won't tell Randi that.

No problem! If whatever you prove is deemed paranormal at the time of the test, you win the prize. It won't matter if science later discovers a physical explanation. So, good luck!

*snip*

Hans

[Kevin_Lowe]

After a wee bit of trying, I can now see an optical effect I could legitimately describe as "a fuzzy aura one inch around" my sweetie's iMac, and around the telly. Particularly when they are framed by a white wall in the background.

It's the optical effect I mentioned in my earlier post, where the brain sharpens up the image of an object.

This might not be what the original poster was describing, of course. I just thought I'd mention it.

[Quasi]

Randi mentioned some time ago that anyone can see an aura around any object. This is caused by eye fatigue, which leads presumably to a distortion of the lens which seperates the colors of light as they enter the eye much like a prism. So no, I do not doubt you have seen what you call auras, I merely disagree that it is some kind of internal energy in order to rationalize a belief in a failed healing art such as Reiki.
BTW, Dolores Krieger RN used Kirlian photography to explain the total failure of Therapeutic Touch after the Emily Rosa trial, and how it really does work. Just how electro ionization of water backs it up is just plain stupid. It is a desperate excuse for con artists to hold onto a core of true believers. I know KP is being used to back up many claims, I have also seen it used in TCM to explain how masters can identify the healing properties of "unknown" plants just by placing their hands over them. (I see this warming the heart and aligning the central meridian.) More nonsense. But there you go, take it or leave it.

[robbersdog]

Aumgn, what would it take for you to change your mind? One of the things that makes so many of the discussions here end up going in circles is there is no clear direction. Would it ever be possible to make you think twice about Reiki and Auras?

In one of your first posts, you ask about the Skeptic position on auras. I think patnray had it about right. The photography is only proof that film can be effected, not that auras exist. Also, showing that the effect on the film is not caused by auras, doesn't proove in any way that auras don't exist. I suppose one of the difficult things with this sort of claim is that you are the only person who knows what your eyes are seeing. I can't step into your head and have a look myself!

I have a couple of fairly direct questions since I know little about auras and have never seen them myself. I hope you don't mind if these seem a little basic, but i'm just getting the facts clear. I'll try to make them as concise as possible, so none of the skeptics can claim you're using evasion tactics.

1/ Are the auras visible all the time? (yes/no)

2/ What effects the size of the aura?

3/ If someone stood behind a screen the same height as themselves, could you see the aura above the screen? (yes/no)

I'll ask a few more questions based on the answers, so don't worry if the answers you give don't give the whole picture, we have all the time in the world to expand, I just don't want to be discussing seven or eight points at once. You seem interested in knowing what we think, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say!

My personal position is that I don't know if auras exist, I just haven't seen any reliable evidence of it. I am very prepared to change my mind, as long as the evidence is properly presented.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I've been pondering this myself. Two ideas came to mind.

If the auras are visible in darkness, have a room with no lighting. Bring the seer into the room and have them detect how many (if any) people are in the room by their auras.



T'was done, on national TV (USA) no less.

They had a number of stalls into which people were inserted. The result was chance. A spectacular demonstration of random guessing.

[aumgn]

Thanks for all the answers.

plindboe: Can you describe the method you use to see people's aura's with your own eyes?

I'm assuming you mean simply the vision process itself and not the development of the ability. I used to have to relax my eyes and my body first (I could see the hazy glow the best after I'd given a Reiki treatment) but after becoming a bit more advanced now I just look at an object/person and see the glow.

On the two pictures you posted, the color changes(Yellow->Red & Red->Green). Why is that? Does auras always have a different color around people's heads?

As one skeptic researcher has noted, the colors do change based on the subject's emotions. The scientific explanation for this is that emotions effect the level of moisture on the subject; the "woo woo" explanation is that the photography process simply captures the emotional layer of the aura. The Amazing Randi gives a basic outline of what the colors mean in The Supernatural A-Z:

"Pink means affection.

Bright red means anger.

Dark red means passion and sensuality.

Yellow means high intellectual activity.

Orange means selfishness, pride and ambition.

Brown means greed.

Green means many, many different things.

Blue means religion and devotion.

Purple means psychic ability and occult power."

The emotional layer of the aura does constantly change to reflect that person's emotions.



Kevin_Lowe: As others have said, the simplest explanation is that you are lying. This is the explanation I favour for the people who claim to be able to see large, multicoloured auras.

:D

Assuming you are telling the truth, the simplest explanation is that you have fallen victim to some combination of wish-fulfillment and optical illusion. Sorry.

None of that applies to me, sorry. But I guess there's no way for you to know that, is there? :p

Firstly, you might be unfocusing your eyes a trifle. This is easily done with practise, and is not a supernatural ability. One test for this explanation would be to see if you can perceive the aura when you are sharply focused on the object in question, and whether you can see auras at long distances as well as short ones.

I can see the aura when I'm sharply focused on the object. The hazy glow I see is colorless so while I probably could see it from 100 feet I don't think it'd be distinct enough for me to really make out. As it stands I can see auras from at least 20 feet away; I'll do some testing with this to see what I can/can't see.

Secondly, our brain naturally emphasises distinct objects in our vision, making them seem more distinct than they "really" are by editing the brightness of their surroundings. If you look for it you can see it, and it's a bit weird. Some optical illusions rely on this effect. It's possible you are mistaking a natural image-editing function for a superpower.

Part of the reason I doubt this is because I never saw auras before I received Reiki training; and my ability to see the hazy glow increased after doing "auric vision" exercises. Perhaps I can submit for examination some of the exercises I've performed to see if anything I did would produce a vision defect or anomaly or weird after-image.

Thirdly, if the aura is as you describe it you should be able to see it in the dark, right? If you cannot use it to detect someone in pitch darkness, it seems that you are not seeing auras generated by the human body at all. You are seeing some kind of distortion at your end, rather than an energy from their end.

Yeah, I can see it in the dark. It's pretty cool, really.

Fourthly, if the aura is a biological phenomenon you should be unable to get a similar effect from inanimate objects, storefront dummies and so on. Try it and see if you can see a dummy's aura.

I'm not saying the aura is a biological phenomenon. There does exist such an "etheric field" around inanimate objects, as far as I can tell, and as far as "woo woo" conventionality can tell. But of course inanimate objects don't have emotions, thus the real test of ability would require me to see the second layer, which I'm working on but not there yet. Sometimes I see what I think is the outline of the emotional layer, since it extends about 12 inches all around the head. I just can't see colors yet.

Lastly, a very strong test would be to do a blind study with a partner where they tested your ability to detect a hand or other body part that you cannot directly see, seeing only the aura it emanates. If you can do this under conditions such that you cannot be picking up other clues to help you, then you have a superpower and the million will soon be yours!

Yeah I could do that pretty easily. Once I find a friend of mine who won't think I'm nuts to do this with, I'll perform this experiment and get back to you with the results. But I definitely wouldn't call it a superpower; it's something anyone can develop.

The simplest explanation is that this girl is an attention-seeking fraud. "Ooh, is that really what all the books say aura vision is like? Wow, I never imagined that!". Since no one has ever demonstrated "by the book" aura vision under conditions that exclude fraud, I think it's highly unlikely that she has a real superpower that lines up exactly with the book. It's far more likely she has read the same books you have and is lying.

I find the idea that a serious woo-woo who sees coloured spots around people's heads had never encountered the idea of auras before fairly hard to take. Your mileage may vary.

This also handily explains the pain she felt in a Reiki class. She felt like getting some attention and being the center of some drama, so she put on an act. People do that, and in fact such people are by all available evidence more common than people with genuine superpowers.

Well that may be the "simplest explanation" but everything I know about the girl leads me to believe otherwise. Unfortunately there's no way for you to verify or for me to verify to your liking her ability, so it's probably moot.


Will respond to everyone else later, gotta go right now :D

[Suezoled]

Remember: please be kind to the noob as long as she is kind to you. They stay around longer to play.

[Quasi]

Originally posted by aumgn
Thanks for all the answers.





Will respond to everyone else later, gotta go right now :D

Thanks aumgn, I look foward to your test setup and results.

[voidx]

Posted by aumgn
I'm quite sure I don't have a vision disorder.

But are you perfectly sure? Have you had your eyes checked recently? So you went to Reiki, and out of the blue you start seeing "things" or "auras". My first thought would be to go have my eyes checked, have you done this? If my vision was fine, and then it changed, and in this case as it would seem quite significantly, then this would be the first thought to cross my mind, not that I had some new special ability.

I would agree in general with everyone else regarding the photographs, they show some effect, but there's no proof its "auras" instead of something mundane. The fact that the photographic process is different in the first place seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. Or rather finding a way to change the photographic process to reflect what in your mind an aura should look like. Another good question was, did people come up with Kirlian photopraghy first and go, "hmmm whats this we're seeing? Lets ponder. Hey I know, maybe their auras". Or did the concept of auras already exist, and Kirlian photography was simply found as a potential means of showing them?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by aumgn
Perhaps I could use colored pencils to sketch an auric portrait of someone then take that person's picture with Kirlian photography; if my drawing is the same as the photo, dontcha think I'd win a million bucks? Cha-ching.

No need to get so complex. I've seen people who claimed/believed they could see auras debunked on TV, by Randi in fact. Not only could they not sketch an aura, theycouldn't even see one.


All you need is a wall with people standing behind it leaving 1 inch from the top of the head to the top of the wall. Place people in random spots behind the wall and you have to spot them by seeing their auras.

[Soapy Sam]

Aumgn- I assume you will appreciate that there are two fundamental mental approaches to this issue:

As "mundane" explanations are ruled out one by one, some people will be increasingly convinced you are describing an unknown or unexplained phenomenon.

People of a different mindset will be increasingly certain that you are either deluded or deliberately lying.

Most regulars at this site fall into the second group. You are aware of this. So don't be dismayed if some of us are brusque or dismissive. We would be astonished, but fascinated if your ability had some grounding in fact. We will not, however, believe it without hard evidence.
If you can produce such, we will be happy to see it.

Meanwhile, please consider what voidx said. A sudden change in the nature of your vision may indicate anything from astigmatism to a brain tumour. Taking you at your word, I urge you very strongly to see an orthoptist as soon as possible. (Not just a prescribing optician who might find your eyes appear fine, as this would further convince you that the aura effect is real.)

Frankly, I hope you are imagining this, as that is the least dramatic conclusion to the issue I can imagine.

One question. You say you can see the aura in the dark. Does it illuminate things? Can you, for example, read by the illumination?

[Ed]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aumgn
I personally can attest that a hazy field (or, the "etheric" layer of the aura) is visible extending an inch all around the body of myself and others, because I have seen it and can see it at any time. My original ability to perceive this layer was minimal, but since practicing exercises to develop "auric vision" it seems much more tangible, and I don't need to relax my eyes or get in a calm state to see it. Assuming I'm not lying about what I'm seeing ;) , is there a scientific explanation for an indistinct hazy layer extending ~1 inch away from the body? I'm quite sure I don't have a vision disorder. :)

My personal experiences seeing a hazy glow around people's bodies and testing my book knowledge of auras against a girl who claims to see colors are in accordance with what is commonly known (in "woo woo" circles) of auric anatomy, and thus lead me to "believe" that auras surrounding humans (and some other forms of life and matter, to varying degrees) do, in fact, exist.

Gloucoma can have "aura" associated with it. It is also a progressive disease so any increase in your proficiency at detecting auras might simply be associated with going blind. There are other types of disorder that might explain "auras", I can experience them when I have read too much. What happened is that the cilliary muscles spasim causing your lens to go in and out of focus rapidly.

You can duplicate "auras" with something like this:

http://www.fantasyfestival.com/media/9999905184.jpg

It simply uses diffraction to give the illusion of "X-ray vision". I, for one, got suckered in as a kid. If you look thru a transmission diffraction grating you will see "auras" too. That said, a pathological condition can duplicate these things.

If you really see stuff, get your ass to an Opthtomologist right now. By the time you have perfected your "aura" reading, you might be blind.

Good advice, free of charge, from the sceptical community.

[patnray]

One has to ask why auras can be seen with eyes but can not be seen in ordinary photographs. Methods of allegedly photographing auras all require manipulating the process in some way.

The aura can not be electromagnetic, otherwise it would be measurable and detectable. Films are available with sensitivities far exceeding human vision across the spectrum from infrared to ultraviolet to x-rays, but none of them can capture an aura by straight forward photographic technique. Instrumentation can measure precisely the frequency and energy of electromagnetic radiation, but can not detect auras.

Manipulating the film in some way does not rule out valid results, as long as you can show that the manipulation does not cause the alleged effect. For example, astronomers often bathe their film in hydrogen before using it to increase the sensitivity. The chemistry of this is well understood and it can be proven that it does not cause any other changes to the film. Kirlian photography, and other manipulations alleged to enhance auric photography, can be shown to produce effects on the film even when no photographs are actually taken. And it is not hard to explain the ordinary physical cause of the effects.

Human vision is a complex process involving optical, physiological, and psychological processes. Optical illusions and "tricks of the eye" are well known. When you see something out of the ordinary you must rulle out all mundane causes before you can posit supernatural causes.

You should think very carefully about why no one who claims to see auras has ever passed the kind of blind tests described above. Try to think of an answer that does not require unknown, undetectable forces or effects supressing auras or the ability to see them...

[SteveGrenard]

All you need is a wall with people standing behind it leaving 1 inch from the top of the head to the top of the wall. Place people in random spots behind the wall and you have to spot them by seeing their auras.

What about a half inch? how about 1/4 of an inch. You think 1/4 of an inch would be acceptable?

[LTC8K6]

Put a couple of wax dummies in the test somewhere.....

[voidx]

Posted by aumgn
I'm not saying the aura is a biological phenomenon. There does exist such an "etheric field" around inanimate objects, as far as I can tell, and as far as "woo woo" conventionality can tell. But of course inanimate objects don't have emotions, thus the real test of ability would require me to see the second layer, which I'm working on but not there yet. Sometimes I see what I think is the outline of the emotional layer, since it extends about 12 inches all around the head. I just can't see colors yet.

You say its not necessarily a biological phenomenon, yet at the same time say you cannot see the second layer which shows color and emotion. Why if as you say, everything has an aura, inanimate what have you, would a rock persay have an aura with the additional yet apparently completely useless second level for displaying emotions. I'm just noting a little inconsistency here, you say its not a biological phenomenon, but then state as though it were as normal and mundane as apple pie that you can almost, but not quite make out the second emotional level. If its not biological, why does it need an emotional level?

To me if everything has an aura that makes more sense with the scientific explantion offerred for what is shown in the kirlian photographs. The combinations of moisture and whathaveyou could have the same effect possibly on inanimate objects as they do on people when it comes to kirlian photographs. Has anyone done Kirlian photography on rocks, or say, moist face clothes? Do they have Aura's, and if so, what emotions might my face cloth be feeling?

[SteveGrenard]

hmm...well if everything has an aura then the test of say a human hand held just below a shield wouldn't work since the shield would give an aura of its own. So much for that test. So would wax dummies or anyother kind of dummy material. Anyone have any better tests?

[voidx]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
hmm...well if everything has an aura then the test of say a human hand held just below a shield wouldn't work since the shield would give an aura of its own. So much for that test. So would wax dummies or anyother kind of dummy material. Anyone have any better tests?
Well lets be careful here. I'd like some clarification if the people that do kirlian photography, and believers in aura's agree in general that all things have aura's, or if this is just aumgn's take on it. Obviously the people doing the tests had no problem with the protocol at the time, so I get the feeling not all aura-ists would agree that everything has an aura. Also as stated by aumgn's the emotional level is colored, so the test could still work. So long as there is a color aura emanating from over the enclosure they should still be able to tell.

[roger]

Yes Steve, I have another test, and it is easy peasy.

Put the testee in a dark room, blindfolded. Take off the blindfold. Ask them to identify how many other people are in the room, and the other major features (i.e. couch, table, not whether there is a picture hanging on the wall).

Edited to add: obviously they are not allowed to stumble around touchng thing, and a good control would be some blind people, as they have experience with detecting things in the dark.

[Loki]

aumgn,

From your last reply :

Yeah, I can see it in the dark. It's pretty cool, really.
...
Sometimes I see what I think is the outline of the emotional layer, since it extends about 12 inches all around the head. I just can't see colors yet.

(Lastly, a very strong test would be to do a blind study with a partner where they tested your ability to detect a hand or other body part that you cannot directly see, seeing only the aura it emanates.)
...
Yeah I could do that pretty easily. Once I find a friend of mine who won't think I'm nuts to do this with, I'll perform this experiment and get back to you with the results.
You've made two completely testable claims here. No need for debate, no need for theory, no need for any further information - just do some testing.

Test one - Darkness.

1. Walk into a completely darkened room, face a corner, close your eyes (ideally, have headphones covering your ears).
2. Have one or two friends (you don;lt know how many) enter the room with you, and tap you on the shoulder when they are ready.
3. Wait 5 seconds, then turn, and identify how many people are in the room with you from their auras.
4. Repeat at least 10 times.

Test Two - Screens

1. Sit down, place a solid (wood/metal) screen a few metres from you, with the top at or just above your eye level.
2. Have friend sit on the other side of the screen, next to it.
3. Close your eyes.
4. Your friend rolls a die - on an even number, they hold their finger horizontally a few millimetres below the top of the screen. On an odd number they hold the finger 30 centimetrs from the top
5. Open your eyes, and tell then whether the finger is at the top of not.
6. Repeat at least 10 times.

If you get a result in both tests that's about chance, then perhaps you need to rethink your claim.

If you get a result in either test that is way above chance (100%, even), then spend some time to think if perhaps there is some other factor that is at play here. Try to eliminate any alternative methods you might be using to determine the number of people. Rerun the tests if required to see if the result remains after you change the conditions.

If you still get solid "above chance" results, contact Randi - you have a claim and protocol that you believe are satisfactory. If you don't trust Randi, contact

Once you've done the tests and generated the results, we can discuss auras. Until then, you haven't even bothered to attempt to address alternative solutions.

Both these tests are simple, and require only a few 'helpers' and probalby no more than an hoiur of your time. Try a few reiki associates if you need assistants who won;t mess up the tests with "negative vibes". If you're not prepared to even attempt a clear and unambiguous test of your claims, then don't expect to get support from skeptics. If you are perpared to do such testing, then be honest in your approach - try to generate data without wanting a certain outcome. Let the data lead to a conclusion, not a conclusion lead to data.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


What about a half inch? how about 1/4 of an inch. You think 1/4 of an inch would be acceptable?

Aumgn stated in his original post that the aura he says he percieves extends one inch beyond a person's body.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
hmm...well if everything has an aura then the test of say a human hand held just below a shield wouldn't work since the shield would give an aura of its own. So much for that test. So would wax dummies or anyother kind of dummy material. Anyone have any better tests?

Mmm. Nevermind my previous post then.

[Loki]

Obviously not everything has an aura - oxygen, for example.

[voidx]

I really think we need to nail down what has an aura and what does not. What does aumgn mean when he/she says everything has an aura. You should technically be able to take a kirlian photograph of a chair, it will show an aura, not a colored second level emotional one, but a grey one or something nonetheless. Has any kirlian photographer every tried the simple experiment of placing any random object in the view of their camera's and take a picture and see if it has an aura or not? Hmmm would a dead person have an aura? Perhaps a bit morbid but would a fresh corpse show an aura? Are aura's tied to only living beings? I'd say no if you claim that inanimate objects can also have aura's.

We've had lots of discussion about what we think the effects of it are. aumgn, what do you believe an aura is? What is it made of? Where does it originate from? Which of its properties makes it able to be photographed by the special process of kirlian photography?

[thaiboxerken]

Even if everything has an aura.. they should still have different auras, correct? I mean, human emotions give humans different auras at different times. However.......... inanimate objects don't have emotions so their "auras" should be the same at all times.

I propose this. Get several objects that look identical, but made of different material. They should have different auras because of the differing material. Then play a mix and match game. If a person can truly see auras, then they should match 100% in every trial.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I mean look at us we’re skeptics we don’t have some kind of belief based agenda! F**k!

?

[xouper]

thaiboxerken: ... inanimate objects don't have emotions ...That's odd, because sometimes I could swear my pet rock gets angry with me if I don't feed it every week. On the other hand, its aura doesn't seem to change much.

[Beanbag]

I have no problem detecting auras around myself at work. At my watchmaker's bench, I have a very expensive piece of equipment called a Witschi Q-6000 (yes, it's pronounced "witchy"), used to troubleshoot quartz watch movements. Among its various functions, it has a capacitive sensor that allows you to place an unopened LCD-display watch on the test pad and determine the rate without actually having to connect anything to the movement itself, which would change the loading on the circuit and thereby alter the timing. I've discovered that I can rub my palms together a few inches away from the pad and the "signal" light will illuminate.

Actually, its reading the static electricity I'm generating by friction. Still, it's an aura or field generated by a biologoical organism. The trick works better in winter, when the air is dry, but it works even on rainy days by just getting closer to the pad. Of course, the best reaction is when I pull the paperwork from inside the vinyl job pouch -- you can get a flash from two to three feet away.

The point is that living things generate electrical fields, either electrostatic or through biological processes. What do you think an electrocardiogram or electroencephalogram is recording? The problem is the signal-to-noise ratio. The modern world is swamped with electronic noise, from the AC line hum to radio stations to noise generated by motors, light dimmers, etc. Anyone who could see the faint field generated by a person would be in the situation of trying to see a half-dead firefly perched in the center of a bank of arc lights.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Zombified]

There's an early electronic musical instrument called a theremin that works by sensing the capacitance between an antenna and the musicians limb/body and using that to control the frequency of a radio oscillator. To play one you just wave your hands around near the antennas, one for pitch and the other for volume.

Of course, that's just basic Maxwell's laws, (roughly speaking) an electrostatic phenomenon. Nothing mysterious or mystical about it, nor anything special about living tissue.

[aumgn]

Aumgn, what would it take for you to change your mind? One of the things that makes so many of the discussions here end up going in circles is there is no clear direction. Would it ever be possible to make you think twice about Reiki and Auras?
My “belief” in Reiki and auras is tied in with and, with Reiki, built upon, personal experience; thus they are not opinions or based upon blind faith or irrational postulations, and will not change easily.

1/ Are the auras visible all the time? (yes/no)
Almost all the time. The only time that I either absolutely cannot see the aura or have difficulty perceiving it is after I consume large amounts of meat, especially red meat, which has a grounding effect and thus reduces my body’s energetic vibration level enough that for some reason I can’t see the hazy glow as well.

2/ What effects the size of the aura?
One of the main ideas of holism is that all life is connected. The aura has more than two layers; while seven layers is the widely accepted (“woo-woo”) number of layers, it is likely, according to holistic thought, that the layers, which are increasingly hard to detect the more you get away from the body, extend to infinity; thus the “how” of the assertion that we are all connected. Note that this is my interpretation. As far as what I can see, I have noted that of all the etheric auras I have looked at, mine is the most visible, I presume because I am the healthiest and probably most spiritually advanced of those whose auras I've seen (and therefore have a stronger aura than most); this is in accordance with holistic thought which holds that a key factor determining the strength (and therefore visibility) of the aura is one’s health. The ways of getting and keeping a strong aura and thus good health have been covered in many books about auras; the main points that anyone can do include eating a balanced diet, exercising regularly, not smoking, drinking, or generally abusing your body – which are largely commonsense health tips – as well as remaining emotionally balanced (having a cheerful disposition helps).

3/ If someone stood behind a screen the same height as themselves, could you see the aura above the screen? (yes/no)
Theoretically (I’ve never tried it). I might test this out.

Make this test: Look at your hand and watch the 1inch "aura". Now look at some person who is, say, 20 ft. away. If the "aura" was real, you would only see it as very thin, but it still looks 1inch thick, because it only exists on your retina.
Tried it on my hand then my cat. No, it does not still look one inch thick, it is proportional to the size of my cat in my vision. I know what afterimages look like, and I know that what I’m seeing is different than that.

Only makes sense if you believe in Reiki woowoo .
“Belief” in the efficacy of Reiki is not a requisite of giving or receiving it. Reiki works independently of one’s beliefs. Were I to give one of you fine fellows a treatment, you would still benefit from it (and resulting from more than just the “relaxation” or whatnot inherent in the treatment’s dynamics). Regardless, the girl’s diagnosis of my aura, green and purple, made sense as I was in a “peaceful” sort of mind (or whatever similar emotional state green can/does represent) and was in a spiritual or psychic or whatever you’d like to call it mode in which I had manifested, as the Amazing Randi says purple represents or is held to represent, “psychic ability and occult power,” or something like it. I acknowledge the possibility she was lying about her knowledge of auras, but after getting a good judge of her personality and overall knowledge of such spiritual matters I have ruled this out as being anywhere near probable.

1) No normal person has a problem seing the red part of the spectrum, so why should it suddenly be a problem with auras?
Perhaps because auras are outside the normal range of human vision. I don’t know enough about the logical explanations for auras or the electromagnetic spectrum to really defend this point. I simply put two pieces of information together: 1) it is common knowledge among holists that blues are perceived first, reds last, and 2) the colors she confessed to being unable to see were reds and oranges, which, in tandem with her purported ignorance of aura dynamics, convinced me that her confessed ability to see colors was authentic. The electromagnetic spectrum bit was my own interpretation of why this happened; if that explanation is fallacious then so be it.

Randi mentioned some time ago that anyone can see an aura around any object. This is caused by eye fatigue, which leads presumably to a distortion of the lens which seperates the colors of light as they enter the eye much like a prism. So no, I do not doubt you have seen what you call auras, I merely disagree that it is some kind of internal energy
If anyone can see an “aura” around any object, mustn’t all auras necessarily then be the same? As in, no differences in “luminosity”? Because I have observed that my aura is more “luminous” than most auras of people I’ve met. How would that, assuming my observations are correct, be explained by the eye fatigue hypothesis?

to rationalize a belief in a failed healing art such as Reiki.
Can I ask why you say Reiki has “failed” as a healing art? If it is all bunk, wouldn’t it be unable even to succeed or fail, because it wouldn’t then be a healing art at all?

But are you perfectly sure? Have you had your eyes checked recently? So you went to Reiki, and out of the blue you start seeing "things" or "auras". My first thought would be to go have my eyes checked, have you done this? If my vision was fine, and then it changed, and in this case as it would seem quite significantly, then this would be the first thought to cross my mind, not that I had some new special ability.
I have had my eyes checked (at least at an optician) since I began receiving Reiki treatment. I do not have 20/20 vision and have not had it since I was younger; but I have no known vision defects other than slight nearsightedness most likely inherited genetically. I did not start seeing the etheric layer of the aura “out of the blue” – the ability developed over time, catalyzed by the energetic “opening” associated with and spiritual evolution precipitated by my numerous Reiki attunements, and helped along with my once-regular practice of auric vision exercises. But with the subject of the efficacy and dynamics of Reiki we venture perhaps too deep into “woo woo”-land for the comfort of my skeptical fellows.

Aumgn- I assume you will appreciate that there are two fundamental mental approaches to this issue:
As "mundane" explanations are ruled out one by one, some people will be increasingly convinced you are describing an unknown or unexplained phenomenon.

People of a different mindset will be increasingly certain that you are either deluded or deliberately lying.

Most regulars at this site fall into the second group. You are aware of this. So don't be dismayed if some of us are brusque or dismissive. We would be astonished, but fascinated if your ability had some grounding in fact. We will not, however, believe it without hard evidence.
If you can produce such, we will be happy to see it.
I completely understand where the skeptic is coming from, and view the skeptical method as a legitimate one for testing the validity of seemingly outlandish claims. I do not expect anyone here to believe me outright. Due to the limitations of our means of communication and my present inability to gather such hard evidence, all I can really do is recount what has led me to the conclusions I hold regarding auras, and hope to stimulate some meaningful discussion about possible causes of my personal experiences alternative to the ones I posit. The most I can ever hope a rational but open-minded skeptic can say as a result of the assertions I make and information I put forth is, “Well if he is being truthful, and if what he says is accurate, then there may be something worth further investigating.” I don’t fault anyone for saying what they do; I am rather happy with the way discussion is going so far, and can say that I expected worse treatment. ;)

One question. You say you can see the aura in the dark. Does it illuminate things? Can you, for example, read by the illumination?
No, it cannot illuminate anything, at least given the present state of my aura and my ability to perceive it.

You've made two completely testable claims here. No need for debate, no need for theory, no need for any further information - just do some testing.
I concur. Unless a reply to my responses merits answering, I will hold off posting further until I’ve done some testing and posted the results.

[thaiboxerken]

My “belief” in Reiki and auras is tied in with and, with Reiki, built upon, personal experience; thus they are not opinions or based upon blind faith or irrational postulations, and will not change easily.

Your "experiences" are tied to your irrational postulations and faith. If you really think you can see aura and that Reiki works, feel free to apply for the JREF million. I doubt that you will, because like many others.. you are afraid to place your beliefs to the test. You are afraid to admit that you are deluded or have been tricked.

Can I ask why you say Reiki has “failed” as a healing art? If it is all bunk, wouldn’t it be unable even to succeed or fail, because it wouldn’t then be a healing art at all?

It's failed because it doesn't work. There are no clinical trials that support the notion that Reiki works any more than placebo effect. It's not a healing art at all, true. It's quackery.

I concur. Unless a reply to my responses merits answering, I will hold off posting further until I’ve done some testing and posted the results.

Yea, then after you "succeed", apply for the JREF million.

[xouper]

aumgn: My “belief” in Reiki and auras is tied in with and, with Reiki, built upon, personal experience; thus they are not opinions or based upon blind faith or irrational postulations, and will not change easily.

thaiboxerken: Your "experiences" are tied to your irrational postulations and faith. If you really think you can see aura and that Reiki works, feel free to apply for the JREF million. I doubt that you will, because like many others.. you are afraid to place your beliefs to the test. You are afraid to admit that you are deluded or have been tricked.I'd like to suggest some caution here, Ken. I have seen nothing in aumgn's posts that indicate the fears you ascribe. I know we have seen this in others before, but may I suggest it is premature to accuse aumgn of such fears, or to stereotype him based on other "claimants".

In fact, I'd like to say that I'm impressed with aumgn's demeanor in this thread and he does not deserve to be treated with disrespect.

That's not to say I agree with the metaphysical claims aumgn makes. I've heard them all before, since they are mostly mainstream New Age stuff. Aumgn has made several testable claims, and I would like to suggest that they be tested and leave the editorializing for later.

[thaiboxerken]

I doubt that augmn will be applying for the JREF million. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by xouper
I'd like to suggest some caution here, Ken. I have seen nothing in aumgn's posts that indicate the fears you ascribe. I know we have seen this in others before, but may I suggest it is premature to accuse aumgn of such fears, or to stereotype him based on other "claimants".

In fact, I'd like to say that I'm impressed with aumgn's demeanor in this thread and he does not deserve to be treated with disrespect.

I second the motion. Aumgn has conducted his/herself admirably so far, and there is no reason to be rude.

They have presented their claims, read the replies, and stated that they will perform proper tests. Really, what more could you ask for?

[epepke]

Originally posted by aumgn
My next question, for those who do not acknowledge the existence of an aura around the human body, would be how would one explain "auric vision"? Many people have described seeing a hazy outline extending about an inch from their hand or some such body part.

This is pretty simple. Get a shield of some sort, maybe a piece of cardboard, to cover the body part. For extra fun, get some people to hide behind some shields but not others, such that you don't know beforehand who is hiding behind what shield. If you see something, then you're seeing something real. If you don't, then it's an artifact of the visual system.

[Ceinwyn]

I would like to tell a story about reiki.

My mother had been sick with multiple sclerosis for about 20 years. One of the people we employed to care for her was Marian.

Marian was of the opinion that all my mother needed was proper nutrition, a chakra tuneup, and reiki.

She gave it her all, hummed all over my mom's room, waved her hands here and there, bought nutritional supplements. My mother was thriving, all would be well.

My mom died May 28, 2002.

Marian came to the funeral and told me she'd felt my mom's essence, then gave me a card with Sylvia Brown's website on it.

This is why I hate reiki.

[plindboe]

aumgn, thanks for answering my questions. Below follows a couple more.


http://www.netasia.net/users/truehealth/Kirlian%20Photography.htm

In effect, a single person can come up with different auras simply by changing finger pressure and the amount of moisture found in his or her skin. The more moisture there is, the larger and more colorful the auras are.

Why does aruas become more colorful when the skin is more moist?

Also from that article:

If a photograph is taken in a vacuum, where no ionized gas is present, no Kirlian image appears.

Why does auras seize to exist in vacuum?


About Randi's challenge, I sincerily advice you to be take it. If auras really do exist, then the rest of humanity needs to know. If you fail the challenge, you will know that your ability is self delusion, which would be an important step for you to realize, though I'm sure you can think of some kind of excuse for failing. People always fail, and always come up with excuses afterwards. ;)

[Soapy Sam]

I'm with Xouper. Of course we mostly believe Aumgn is mistaken or deliberately lying, but from his (her?) general demeanour, I am assuming the former.

I still urge him to see an eye specialist- a prescribing optician may be unable to detect underlying neural conditions by ocular inspection. I would hate to think this is an undiagnosed condition which we fail to recognise. Also, consider the possibility the the auric exercises themselves may be damaging your eyes, and so causing the effect.

There is something to be learned here, either for Aumgn, or the rest of us. (Again, I think the former, but let's wait and see.)

One inconsistency in Aumgn's comments is about the colour of the aura. (I apologise if I misread you here) Is the aura colourless or not? If it is colourless, how do you see it in the dark? Do you "see" it (as we do light), by reflection off objects or do you see it as a glowing area around the source? If the latter, is it reflected off objects at all? (Hold a white sheet of paper close to the aura. Does it shine? View the paper through crossed polarising lenses- (two old polaroid lenses will do) Is the reflection polarised? Is the source polarised? Try photographing any reflected aura. When you look at an aura round a person, is it brighter where it is thickest (ie looking along the side of the body), or is it fainter? Does it cast a shadow?
Are there any Kirlian photos from above, or below a person?

Like others, I feel there is much that must be nailed down here about exactly where and how this phenomenon manifests itself.
I do not expect Aumgn to have all the data, but perhaps someone else has?

I suspect if Aumgn genuinely examines the effect , he will find there are other explanations, but I'll be interested to hear further reports.

[Soapy Sam]

The only time that I either absolutely cannot see the aura or have difficulty perceiving it is after I consume large amounts of meat, especially red meat, which has a grounding effect


That would be ground meat then?

Sorry, too bad to resist.:D

[voidx]

Posted by aumgn
Almost all the time. The only time that I either absolutely cannot see the aura or have difficulty perceiving it is after I consume large amounts of meat, especially red meat, which has a grounding effect and thus reduces my body’s energetic vibration level enough that for some reason I can’t see the hazy glow as well.

Ummm would you care to go into a little more detail here? How does red meat have a grounding effect on your bodies energetic vibration level. What does that even mean?


Perhaps because auras are outside the normal range of human vision.

So then you would consider yourself as having extraordinary human vision because you can see auras? Is there any theory on what the physiological differences between normal and extraordinary auric vision are?

I guess my main concern is just how completely convinced you are in what it is you are experiencing. Have you ever taken it upon yourself to try and find instances, or experiments where you think your ability might fail, as a further means of convincing yourself its actually what you believe it to be? For small example the comment about red meat having a grounding effect on your vibrational levels, have you ever seriously considered that statement, or what it might mean, or how you could possible test it? To me it seems quite an extraordinary statement to take so casually.