Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
patelvipulk

Is it possible to live on Sunlight?

152 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

patelvipulk

Two months back, I attended a talk by Hira Ratan Manek ( HRM) who claims to live on Sunlight and Water.( without any solid food) for past nine years. His calim has been verified by a team of Indian medical doctors and also by a prof.. at U.Penn, Philladelphia, USA under he funding from NASA ( www.solarhealing.com)

According to him, sunlight has all the nutritians requied to sustain and heal the body. There are thousands of people practices his method of sungazing ( looking at sun directly with open eye at sunrise or sunset ( when UV index is below 2) and increment the view time in 10 sec. daily till it reaches a total of 45 minutes..

On yahoo and MSN groups on the subject, there are 100s of testimonials of sungazers claiming healing in various mental/physical problems.. It seems like there is a good corlation between the practise and the healing but the scieintific explanations is missing.

I have started practising the method myself with positive results ( also no damage to eyesight so far after 5 minutes of sun gazing ) but I can not find explanations on why?

I thought this is probably a corrrect forum where someone may have some good explanation for the link between sunlight and healing. ( There are several articles on the subject on internet like

Natural sunlight destroys breast cancer tumors through creation of Vitamin D

http://www.healingsun.org/001058.html

Osteoporosis remains undiagnosed in millions of Americans; here's how to beat the disease with nutrition, exercise and sunlight

http://www.newstarget.com/001559.html

Warning people to avoid sunshine causes more harm than good; lack of sunshine responsible for many diseases, says research

http://www.newstarget.com/001263.html

Medical researchers use infrared LEDs to heal cancer

http://www.sunlightnews.com/001351.html

Light Emitting Diodes Brings Relief to Cancer Patients

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/techno..._treatment.html

New revelations about health benefits of sunlight frustrate organized medicine

http://www.sunlightnews.com/001269.html

Study urges Britons to ditch sunblock

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=768742004

Sunscreen warning has it all wrong: people need more sunlight on their skin, not less

http://www.healthfactor.info/001520.html

Sunshine warnings are making people ill rather than protecting them

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10336

Sunscreen use actually causes cancer, it doesn't prevent it, says exhaustive scientific research

http://www.sunlightnews.com/001264.html

However, the scieintif explanation is still lacking.. Can someone help?

Vipul..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wings of Selkhet

*shrug* If you wanna get skin cancer, go right ahead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Not to burst your bubble, but the claim is patently ridiculous.

The human body requires the ingestion or infussion of a myriad amount of PHYSICAL chemicals. Sunlight and water alone can not do that.

When one say's that they get Vitamin D from the sun, that is not true. It is a process of the sun on our skin which converts certain PHYSICAL chemicals into vitamin D.

By virtue of p***ing and defecating, you lose that storehouse of chemicals. They must be replenshed by, you got it, food.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

I agree that the claim is beyond the present understanding of medical science. But even to reject a claim, the science needs a proof.. And he was investigated by a reputed prof. at U.Penn ( USA) under funding of NASA and a medical doctor team ( 24/7) for over 100 days. When I was with him for three days, I did not see him eating anything. So did the people who hosted him before and after me..

Also, according to a yahoo group on the sungazing, there are a few people in US that have reached the non-eating stage. A lot of research grants have been applied to NIH, NASA and other funding organizations to understand the phenomena..

But as usual, most research is funded or influenced by big Pharma. co.s and most people reject an unusual claim without even making any effort to understand it..

I am very curious, so I have started the experiment on myself.. From the testimonials on various groups, ( and based on my own experience ow), I know that looking at sun directly during the safe period ( first hour of sunrise or last hour of sunset, when UV index is below 2), there is no harm to the eyes...

Vipul......

Not to burst your bubble, but the claim is patently ridiculous.

The human body requires the ingestion or infussion of a myriad amount of PHYSICAL chemicals. Sunlight and water alone can not do that.

When one say's that they get Vitamin D from the sun, that is not true. It is a process of the sun on our skin which converts certain PHYSICAL chemicals into vitamin D.

By virtue of p***ing and defecating, you lose that storehouse of chemicals. They must be replenshed by, you got it, food.

429928[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePortal

I have no idea if it is possible or not, but I would be very curious to know if it could be done and have sicentific research done on it....

now mind you that it is unlikely that we will see those anytime soon, knowing that if it is indeed true....and people dont need to eat...imagine what it would do to the economy and many will not wish that to happen.

But if it is indeed true, it would take care of world hunger fast enough wink2.gif

I believe in its possibilty....who knows

if you find any genuine research done on it with extensive details...plz share

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke

i heard about the yoga dude who did it. he was very skinny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

My interest is more on the healing side.. It seems to heal many mental and physical problems. There were testimonials on people having hteir eyegalss number reduced instead of going blind ( by Sun gazing). Also, various people are reporting help with anxieties and mental depression..

There are also other yogi's who have lived without food ( e.g. read the famous book by ParamHansa Yogananda totled Autobiographjy of a yogi ( can be read from www.autobiographyofayogi.com or can be bought from B&N for usd 6.00 ( red soft cover). However, HRM is the first person to explain and come out with a easy to follow method of sungazing which anyone can safely practice.

Let me know if you need more material/links on the subject..

You can also send me an email at patelvipulk[at]hotmail.com

Vipul..

I have no idea if it is possible or not, but I would be very curious to know if it could be done and have sicentific research done on it....

now mind you that it is unlikely that we will see those anytime soon, knowing that if it is indeed true....and people dont need to eat...imagine what it would do to the economy and many will not wish that to happen.

But if it is indeed true, it would take care of world hunger fast enough  wink2.gif

I believe in its possibilty....who knows

if you find any genuine research done on it with extensive details...plz share

433275[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke

i believe in this. i've heard and seen incredible things the yogi's can do. or those buddhist in thailand they go into a trance and stick needles in their faces and hit themselves with swords without getting wounded or feeling pain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uversa

Interesting, although I tend to think its all in the belief, forget scientific law, if you believe enough in it, it will happen, whatever it may be.

edit- also, the word believe is a tricky one, i dont really think that the word believe is ever really used in the 100% correct sense.

You cannot just say you believe you have to believe you believe

w00t.gifcrying.gif

Edited by Uversa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

Most of our beliefs are developed based on the surroundings that we are oin and they are influenced a lot by the input we choose to give to our mind and body ( by choosing what we eat, see or listen).

About sungazing, I do not think that it is all in the belief because

1) I have personally met HRM and observed him for three days ( 24/7) when he stayed with us.

2) I have personaly verified his claim with a doctor who was on a team of 21 doctors who observed him 24/7 for his 411 day fast in Ahmedabad, India.

3) There are many other accounts ( Autobiography of a yogi-- book ny Yoganada Paramhansa, Living with Himalayan Masters-- by Swami Rama) and a few others.

I have personally known a spiritual master ( Sri Ram Sharma Acharya--- www.awgp.org) who also lived on sunlight for a few years..

4)There are so many other people who have benifited from sungazing.

(http://www.lifemysteries.com/sungazing.html)

5) There have been reports coming out from European researchers now saying that sunlight is good for you and rather than causing cancer, it can help curing cancer..

6) I am not aware of any scientific studies which says that gazing at sun in the safe period ( 1st hour of sunrise and last hour of sunset) is dangerous. In fact, I am not aware of any scientif study that gazing of sunlight is dangerous eventhough it has been thought to all medical doctors.. I am searchijng for such reports/studeis/published papers myself and anyone who come across it, please post them here or send me and email with the source info. at patelvipulk[at]hotmail.com

7) I have talked to several experts on light sensitivity of penial glad. Based on theri feedback, I have deduced that the present scientic knowledge can not explain the phenomen. However, they also said that they can not negate it also as they do not know and more scietific stuides are needed..

8) Prof. from U.Penn who studied HRM using MRI ( to look at activation of dormant part of the brain and neron regenration) found so many unexplanable things that he is waiting for additional funding before going public.

The reasoning behind sungazing as described by HRM is so logical ( you can hear his lecture at http://www.lifemysteries.com/html/hira_livelecture.html that it is not easy not to get intruided by it if you have a curious mind..

Please write your comments after you exlore the subject.. ( around 400 newspaper artticles have been published on HRM including a BBC documentary)..

You can type hrm phenomena or Hira Ratan Manek on Google and will find many articles ( and one negative one about NASA -- which one was due to misinterpretation of work done under NASA's funding at UPenn and not directly at NASA)

Vipul..

Interesting, although I tend to think its all in the belief, forget scientific law, if you believe enough in it, it will happen, whatever it may be.

edit- also, the word believe is a tricky one, i dont really think that the word believe is ever really used in the 100% correct sense.

You cannot just say you believe you have to believe you believe

w00t.gif  crying.gif

434796[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bizeebutt

Here's my question. Say you have several days in a row with no sunlight due to bad weather. What then?? Do you give in and eat??

Not to burst your bubble, but the claim is patently ridiculous.

The human body requires the ingestion or infussion of a myriad amount of PHYSICAL chemicals. Sunlight and water alone can not do that.

When one say's that they get Vitamin D from the sun, that is not true. It is a process of the sun on our skin which converts certain PHYSICAL chemicals into vitamin D.

By virtue of p***ing and defecating, you lose that storehouse of chemicals. They must be replenshed by, you got it, food.

This is very true, our Bodies make the change, Sunlight is the catalyst.

I do believe there may be healing properties involved however. We may not yet know the extent of the healing properties of the vitamins such as D that are produced in the reaction. Sunlight also increases levels of seratonin, which produces a "happier" state of mind. More sun=less depression, higher state of well being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

According to HRM, once your sungazing time is reached to 45 minutes, after few days, you do not need to sungaze daily. His analogy is that at that time, your battery is fully charged and you do not use much of it after you reach the non-eating stage.. After reaching the non-eating stage, you need to sungaze only occasionally. Walking barefoot on earth ( not grass) will also provide you enough energy from earth to sustain your bodily functions..

( I have no experience in this. I have reached sungazing time of only 5 min. yet...

I have a booklet ( in pdf format) titled "living on sunlight" describing the HRM method ( complied by Veena Parmar) with Q/A and some testimonials. Please send me an email at patelvipuilk[at]hotmail.com if you want me to send it to you. ( all readers, please let me know if you want to read it)..

Vipul..

Here's my question.  Say you have several days in a row with no sunlight due to bad weather.  What then??  Do you give in and eat?? 

Not to burst your bubble, but the claim is patently ridiculous.

The human body requires the ingestion or infussion of a myriad amount of PHYSICAL chemicals. Sunlight and water alone can not do that.

When one say's that they get Vitamin D from the sun, that is not true. It is a process of the sun on our skin which converts certain PHYSICAL chemicals into vitamin D.

By virtue of p***ing and defecating, you lose that storehouse of chemicals. They must be replenshed by, you got it, food.

This is very true, our Bodies make the change, Sunlight is the catalyst.

I do believe there may be healing properties involved however. We may not yet know the extent of the healing properties of the vitamins such as D that are produced in the reaction. Sunlight also increases levels of seratonin, which produces a "happier" state of mind. More sun=less depression, higher state of well being.

435977[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bizeebutt

hmmm,.... the feet thing seems a lil far fetched to me. huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

I agree that it is far fetched. Unless many people reproduce it, it will stay far fatched.. I know a few who are trying... I can post the yahooo and MSN f group links here where there are many sungazer are participating and sharing their experiences...

We will find out the reality with time. But till then, I am keeping an open-mind and waiting for data...

Also there are books on the subject of the healng power of sunlight.. Let me know if someone is interested ( I havenn't read them but have been reco. by someone who has). and I can post the titles here....

Vipul..

hmmm,....  the feet thing seems a lil far fetched to me.  huh.gif

436127[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looter

Yes post those links.

I used to sungaze. I would do it at Sunrise, I would try to catch the very first flame of the Sun and then watch as the Sun disk crossed the horizon, I could literally see the Earth move. The Sphinx sungazes as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

Here are some the links:

www.solarhealing.com

http://www.lifemysteries.com/

http://forums.lifemysteries.com/

http://forums.lifemysteries.com/index.php?board=14.0

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/sungazing/ ( over 1000 members)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sg0/

There is also a group on MSN but I can not find the link..

I will post when I find it..

Vipul..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke

that sunlight thing would be a succes as a dieting method if it is proven to work. i will be the first to patent that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shai_Hulud
I agree that the claim is beyond the present understanding of medical science. But even to reject a claim, the science needs a proof.. And he was investigated by a reputed prof. at U.Penn ( USA) under funding of NASA and a medical doctor team ( 24/7) for over 100 days. When I was with him for three days, I did not see him eating anything. So did the people who hosted him before and after me..

Also, according to a yahoo group on the sungazing, there are a few people in US that have reached the non-eating stage. A lot of research grants have been applied to NIH, NASA and other funding organizations to understand the phenomena..

But as usual, most research is funded or influenced by big Pharma. co.s and most people reject an unusual claim without even making any effort to understand it..

I am very curious, so I have started the experiment on myself.. From the testimonials on various groups, ( and based on my own experience ow), I know that looking at sun directly during the safe period ( first hour of sunrise or last hour of sunset, when UV index is below 2), there is no harm to the eyes...

Vipul......

Or so you and the website claims... Any verifiable source by Nasa or U.Penn? i don't even have to say how ridiculous this is. Usually I wouldn't be so angered but this is a really unhealthy belief! You just cannot subsist on light alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

Here are some the links:

www.solarhealing.com

http://www.lifemysteries.com/

http://forums.lifemysteries.com/

http://forums.lifemysteries.com/index.php?board=14.0

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/sungazing/ ( over 1000 members)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sg0/

There is also a group on MSN but I can not find the link..

I will post when I find it..

Vipul..

Yes post those links.

I used to sungaze. I would do it at Sunrise, I would try to catch the very first flame of the Sun and then watch as the Sun disk crossed the horizon, I could literally see the Earth move. The Sphinx sungazes as well.

437883[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

It is o.k. if you do not want to investigate. I am not asking anyone to believe me. I am a degreed scientist myself and I do not belive ion things without having proof. At the same time, I do not reject claims if I can not prove them to be baseless also.. Till then , it is may be it is true and it is beyond my present understanding for me.. But I do leave my my open about the idea and force myself to collect more data while looking at the noise source in it..

So when I heard about HRM, I contacted him and invited him to my place. In that process , I have met many sungazers who have been benefited by his method.. I have been tracking postings on various groups and communication with many people posting it. I do not have any personal experience of mine so I am practising the method myself and the only thing I can say thay I feel positive more often and there are no negative effects.. ( also many of my friends who heard him are doing it).

Here is a link (from his website www.solarhealing.com) about medical doctors in US who participated in a forum discussing the study at U.Penn

I have not contacted them myself but know a person who has talked to at least one of them.. Please feel free to cantact them and post your feedback here.

A Quote from the website

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

http://www.solarhealing.com/HRM%20Panel%20...on%20020929.pdf

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/health/lightresearch.htm

I am interested only if there is a science here and in Science, datapoints should be reproducible.. ( even if it is in limited quantity under a specific environment).

It is a different story if someone can explain them or not. I am in the data collection process. I am a Ph.D. in EE and does not have the background to even attempt to explain the phenomena. I am in serach of open-minded sciencitsts in the field who will not just ignore the claim because from mordern science prespective it is unexplainable..( A lot of ancient scriptures for many cultures talks about sungazing). I have an ebook which talks about it. If you or someone reading this is interested, I can email it to you or post a link here for free dwonload..

Vipul..

I agree that the claim is beyond the present understanding of medical science. But even to reject a claim, the science needs a proof.. And he was investigated by a reputed prof. at U.Penn ( USA) under funding of NASA and a medical doctor team ( 24/7) for over 100 days. When I was with him for three days, I did not see him eating anything. So did the people who hosted him before and after me..

Also, according to a yahoo group on the sungazing, there are a few people in US that have reached the non-eating stage. A lot of research grants have been applied to NIH, NASA and other funding organizations to understand the phenomena..

But as usual, most research is funded or influenced by big Pharma. co.s and most people reject an unusual claim without even making any effort to understand it..

I am very curious, so I have started the experiment on myself.. From the testimonials on various groups, ( and based on my own experience ow), I know that looking at sun directly during the safe period ( first hour of sunrise or last hour of sunset, when UV index is below 2), there is no harm to the eyes...

Vipul......

Or so you and the website claims... Any verifiable source by Nasa or U.Penn? i don't even have to say how ridiculous this is. Usually I wouldn't be so angered but this is a really unhealthy belief! You just cannot subsist on light alone!

441708[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

Here is another link of medical doctors looking at the HRM phenomena....

http://www.sfuo.org/HRMPaper.html

Vipul..

Yes post those links.

I used to sungaze. I would do it at Sunrise, I would try to catch the very first flame of the Sun and then watch as the Sun disk crossed the horizon, I could literally see the Earth move. The Sphinx sungazes as well.

437883[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

here are some good refences on safe-sungazing from a website discussing the topic:

Did Galileo lose his eyesight due to sungazing through telescope?

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/vision/Galileo.html

Naked-eye solar hazards

So, if Galileo didn't go blind from observing the Sun, why are so many people worried about looking at the Sun? Well, as Mulder mentioned above, people do sometimes suffer eye damage at solar eclipses. And it's also true that a few early obsevers did suffer some minor eye injury from looking at the Sun under unsafe conditions: Isaac Newton seems to have suffered a very small scotoma by looking at the Sun's reflection in a mirror when it was high in the sky; and Thomas Harriot, who discovered sunspots independently, once observed the Sun near noon, and reported that ``My sight was after dim for an houre.'' John Greaves reported afterimages looking like ``a company of crows'' for ``some days'' after making solar observations directly through a telescope.

Still, it's rare to hear of anyone suffering eye damage from just looking at the Sun under normal conditions. Why?

First of all, you need to understand what kind of damage sunlight can inflict on eyes. Most people suppose you will ``burn'' your eyes by looking at the Sun. This notion is refuted in the technical paper

T. J. White, M. A. Mainster, P. W. Wilson, and J. H. Tips

Chorioretinal temperature increases from solar observation

Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 33, 1-17 (1971)

in which the authors state that

Direct thermal damage to living tissues is generally associated with temperature increases of 10-25°C. . . . These thresholds are substantially higher than the 4°C temperature rise computed for an unassisted solar observation with a 3 mm pupil diameter and [zenith] observation angle. Since 90% of this temperature rise occurs in the first 300 msec of an observation, accidental solar observation on a clear day would be a significant hazard if a 4°C temperature increase were capable of producing a chorioretinal lesion. However, with normal pupil adaptation, the only effect of unaided solar observations, even several seconds in length, is a transient afterimage. Thus, it is clear that the 4°C temperature rise can be safely tolerated. . . . Solar observations with a dilated pupil may result in chorioretinal temperature increases substantially greater . . . . Unaided, solar eclipse observations also produce smaller temperature increases . . . . However, since the iris may be adapted to a larger pupil diameter during eclipse conditions than during unobscured conditions, . . . the eclipse observation would then be more hazardous than an unobscured observation. . . .

So, thermal damage (not really a ``burn'') is possible under conditions of a partial eclipse, when only a little of the Sun is exposed, and the pupil opens up to adapt to the low overall light level; but it is unlikely in normal daytime conditions.

In agreement with this calculation, there are published instances of people staring at the Sun, even high in the sky, without harm. As an example, I cite the first-hand account of

G. Lowe

Bold experiments in physiological optics

Meteorological Magazine 59, 213 (1924)

who wrote:

As there appears to be prevalent a belief that looking at the sun with the naked eye would be injurious . . . , for some years I have experimented with the sun by looking at it with the naked eye . . . . On one occasion, on the 21st of June at 12 o'clock noon, I looked steadily at the sun for 15 minutes, changing from one eye to the other at intervals of about 30 seconds, and beyond making my eyes run there was no inconvenient effect. This was done while I was living in Atlanta, Ga., where the sun is fairly strong on the date given. As this took place 12 years ago, and, as at the age of 68 my sight is very good, I am sure that no one need fear trying similar experiments.

I hasten to add that I do NOT recommend trying this yourself! Nevertheless, it is certainly experimental confirmation of the conclusion by White et al. that the heating of the direct solar image ``can be safely tolerated'' — at least for a few minutes. Note that the Sun was nearly at the zenith when Lowe performed his experiment in Atlanta at noon on the summer solstice.

Further evidence that even prolonged staring at the Sun does not usually produce blindness is given in the work

M. O. M. Tso, F. G. La Piana

The human fovea after sungazing

Trans. Amer. Acad. Ophthalmol. Otolaryngol. 79, pp. OP-788 to OP-795 (1975)

Tso and Piana asked three middle-aged people, each with an eye that was to be surgically removed to prevent the spread of malignant melanoma, to stare directly at the Sun for one hour, a day or two before the operation. To quote from their summary:

Two of the patients sungazed with an undilated pupil, and, 24 hours later, recovered their preexposure visual acuity with no detectable scotoma. One of the patients looked at the sun with a partially dilated pupil, and 24 hours later her visual acuity dropped from 20/20 to 20/25.

But even in that eye, whose pupil was dilated to 4 mm, acuity was back to 20/20 after another day, though the scotoma remained.

After surgery, the eyes were examined under the microscope. Although damage to the retinal pigment epithelium was seen in every case, the photoreceptors appeared perfectly normal. The ages of the patients were 49, 55, and 57 years.

On the other hand, there are also cases of people who stared at the Sun for only a few minutes, when it was much lower in the sky, and suffered long-lasting scotomas:

M. Hope-Ross, S. Travers, D. Mooney

Solar retinopathy following religious rituals

British Journal of Ophthalmology 72, 931-934 (1988)

These authors report only partial recovery of visual acuity in four patients who stared at the Sun in religious rituals. In some cases the exposure was reported to be only a few minutes, with the Sun moderately low in the sky (variously described as ``late afternoon'' and the like). Although all reported partial recovery of acuity over the course of several weeks, they all still complained of scotomas many months after the injury. These cases indicate that at least some people are quite susceptible to eye damage from staring at the Sun.

Hope it is informative...

Also my request to all to post links on the subject of why it is unsafe to sungze and especially during the first hour of sunrise and lst hour prior to sunset ( whn the UV index is below 2). I am after understanbding the science of sungazing and no data should be neglected.......

Vipul..

Yes post those links.

I used to sungaze. I would do it at Sunrise, I would try to catch the very first flame of the Sun and then watch as the Sun disk crossed the horizon, I could literally see the Earth move. The Sphinx sungazes as well.

437883[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subtemperate

The problem with pereptions is that they aren't always correct, and therefore many eye witnesses accounts can't be taken as reliable. If this was true, David Copperfield would really fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

I agree that not all eyewitness accounts are not correct especially if the person (in this case the magician) is not willing to disclose his method. That is not the case with HRM. He is teaching his method to everyone for mental, physical and spiritual benifits at with no charge. He has been investigated by many doctors. He lectrues all over the world and one can meet him or write to him with questions. And his teachings have been followed by thousands and so many people are willing to share the benifits they have received from sungazing.

It is amazing, how we all ( including me) find arguments to justify our beliefs rather than driving ourselves to find the real data. Just a thought came to my mind that it is easy for use to accept a rear disease ( and there are hundreds of them with only a few reported cases in a million where medical science is clueless and has no expalnation. But we can accpet them very easily but can not accept the possiblity of a person living on sunlight even when a few medical doctors are willing to verify the claim.

Vipul..

The problem with pereptions is that they aren't always correct, and therefore many eye witnesses accounts can't be taken as reliable.  If this was true, David Copperfield would really fly.

446836[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patelvipulk

More quotes on the safe Sungazing from the website I previously posted:

The real cause of solar eye damage

Actually, it turns out that the main damage to the eye is photochemical, not thermal. So it is the short wavelengths that are harmful. This is shown in the paper

W. T. Ham, Jr., H. A Mueller, and D. H. Sliney

Retinal sensitivity to damage from short wavelength light

Nature 260, 153-155 (1976)

Ham and his co-workers estimated that ``sungazing at bright midnoon for 100 s can produce a threshold lesion.'' This may be roughly consistent with Lowe's experience, and is certainly in line with the reports of eye damage in sun-gazing religious pilgrims, who required at least several minutes' exposure without protection to suffer long-lasting eye damage.

A later paper

W. T. Ham, Jr., H. A. Mueller, J. J. Ruffolo,Jr., and D. Guerry III

``Solar retinopathy as a function of wavelength: its significance for protective eyewear'', in ``The Effects of Constant Light on Visual Processes'' edited by T. P. Williams and B. N. Baker

(Plenum Press, New York, 1980) pp. 319-346

says there is

. . . conclusive evidence that infra-red radiation in the solar spectrum cannot produce a retinal lesion unless one gazes at the sun for 1000 seconds with a 8 mm pupil. If the wavelengths below 700 nm in solar radiation are removed with a filter like the RG-715 Jena glass filter, direct sun gazing can be tolerated for appreciable periods of time.

In summary, . . . near infra-red solar radiation makes only a negligible contribution to retinal damage.

However, they note that shorter visible wavelengths can be harmful, so that an optical attenuation by a factor of 1000 would be required for safe continuous observation of the Sun. One can hardly disagree with the statement that using a filter attenuating sunlight by a factor of 1000 would be safe.

Statistical evidence

Evidence that the normal eye is (marginally) able to look briefly at the Sun without harm is shown by the statistical distribution of solar injuries. After all, the near-total eclipses at which eye injury occasionally occurs are visible only a few minutes per century at any given location on Earth; the unobscured Sun is available for viewing every clear day. If we suppose the Sun is up (on the average) for 12 hours a day, that's about 440,000 hours or over 26 million minutes per century that the Sun is up outside of eclipse, compared to a few minutes of dangerous time near totality. So you'd expect eye injuries from unprotected Sun-viewing to be roughly a million times more common than injuries during eclipses.

But in fact, according to the review of such injuries published by Istock in 1985, ``the vast majority of solar retinal injuries occur as a result of viewing a solar eclipse without adequate protection.'' So it usually requires the special conditions of an eclipse near totality, in which the low level of general illumination allows the pupil to open up instead of contracting (as it normally does when looking at the Sun), to push the visual system over the threshold for damage in a brief exposure.

Even when eclipses are available, such injuries are uncommon. This suggests that some additional factor, such as exposure to eye-dilating drugs, may be involved. (Quite a variety of nasal decongestants and other common drugs, as well as exposure to some pesticides, have been reported to dilate the pupils.)

While there are a handful of cases of solar retinopathy produced by staring at the Sun outside of eclipse, these are nearly all associated with bizarre religious practices, drug use, mental illness, or other abnormal and rare circumstances. Normal people just don't get eye damage from looking at the Sun; the average person looks away when the Sun is ``too bright to look at,'' and exposure for a few seconds does not seem to be sufficient to damage most eyes — though some people may be unusually susceptible to this kind of injury.

Actual eye injuries

Outside of eclipse, eye injuries from staring at the Sun are rare, because it's so unpleasant to look at the Sun when it is actually too bright to look at safely that any normal person looks away and avoids eye damage.

Eclipse injuries, on the other hand, can occur without the observer being aware of it. But even these are uncommon. For example,

M.Juan-López and M.P.Peña-Corona

Estrategia para prevenir daños a la salud ocasionados por la observación del eclipse solar en México

Salud Pública de México 35, 494-499 (1993)

discuss the incidence of solar retinopathy at the 1991 eclipse in Mexico, and find it to be less than 1 in 100,000.

One of the most famous cases of eye injury from deliberately staring at the Sun is that of Gustav Theodor Fechner, generally regarded as the ``Father of Psychophysics.'' In 1840, he looked at the Sun through various colored glasses and solutions in a study of after-images. The details of his experiences are published in

G. Th. Fechner

Ueber die subjectiven Nachbilder und Nebenbilder

Poggendorff's Annalen der Physik und Chemie 50, 193-221, 427-470 (1840)

Some of the filters he used were blue and violet in color, which produced a serious eye hazard: the blockage of most of the visible light allows the pupil to expand, but the color of the filter allows most of the photochemically harmful short waves to enter the eye. Worse yet, he viewed the Sun through a hole in the shutter of a darkened room, which — like the dim light of a solar eclipse — would contribute further to the expansion of the eye pupil. Finally, he stared at the Sun ``as long as the eyes could bear without excessive irritation.'' You could hardly devise conditions more likely to damage the retina photochemically if you tried! Not surprisingly, Fechner seriously injured his eyes in this process. The photophobia resulting from this experience is a classic symptom of solar retinitis.

Yet, after spending three years secluded in a darkened room, he found that his vision had recovered. Such recoveries are actually fairly common, though they are somewhat unusual in cases as severe as Fechner's.

For example, the Mexican study of eclipse scotomas cited above found that all 21 victims ``recovered their full visual function after four months.'' Another study,

L. S. Atmaca, A. Idil, D. Can

Early and late visual prognosis in solar retinopathy

Graefe's Archiv Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 233, 801-804 (1995)

found that about half the victims recovered completely in a few months. Only eyes that initially lost half or more of their visual acuity retained long-lasting damage.

In fact, Sir Isaac Newton seems to have suffered a mild scotoma at age 22 while looking at the Sun. Like Fechner, he suffered photophobia, but shut himself in a darkened room for only a few days, after which his sight returned to normal in a few months. His case was much like those reported in the Mexican study. (The details are given on another page here.)

Because eye injury outside of eclipse is so rare, and because it is caused primarily by the shorter, photochemically active wavelengths, we can expect that no injury at all can be produced when the Sun is low and the harmful wavelengths are largely removed by atmospheric extinction. The papers cited above allow this matter to be investigated quantitatively, bearing in mind the safety factor of 1000 attenuation suggested by Ham et al., and the statement that an unprotected eye can be marginally injured in 100 seconds when the Sun is high.

Sunset eye safety

In fact, in the article ``Eye protective techniques for bright light,'' published in Ophthalmology 90, 937-944 (1983), David H. Sliney wrote:

When the sun is low in the sky it is yellow or orange indicating that the hazardous blue light has been scattered out of the direct path of sunlight, and the sun may be fixated for many minutes without risk.

It's worth going through the numbers for this situation, because there is a very large and rapid change in the brightness of the Sun near sunset.

For example, the smallest possible atmospheric extinction coefficient at sea level in blue light is about 1/4 stellar magnitude per airmass (the airmass at the zenith is taken to be unity.) When the Sun is 5° above the horizon, the airmass is about 10, so the blue light is reduced by at least 2.5 magnitudes, or a factor of 10. This would ordinarily not permit a threshold lesion to develop in 100 seconds; if we suppose the damage depends only on the total exposure, then 1000 seconds would be required, assuming the brightness remained constant. But, at low latitudes, the Sun sets 20 minutes or only 1200 seconds after reaching an altitude of 5° — and during this time, its brightness is rapidly decreasing. This suggests that, at low latitudes, staring at the Sun for the full 20 minutes before sunset might be marginally enough to produce a threshold photochemical retinal lesion in an average eye. As there is evidently some variation in sensitivity, not all eyes would necessarily be safe at this point.

A prudent observer might ask for an additional factor of 10 to be safe. This requires waiting until the Sun reaches 20 airmasses, or about 2° altitude, 8 minutes before sunset at the Equator, or 12 minutes before sunset in places like Montreal, Paris, or Rome. At higher latitudes, the Sun is lower and even safer to look at 10 minutes before sunset; so ``10 minutes before sunset'' seems a safe rule to employ. As the width of the thumb at arm's length is just about 2°, it is a good ``rule of thumb'' that if you can cover up the image of the Sun with your thumb, extended at arm's length, and still have the lower edge of the thumb touching the sea horizon, you can look at the Sun safely.

A very conservative observer who wanted the full factor of 1000 attenuation of blue sunlight recommended by Ham et al. would wait until the Sun reached 30 airmasses, at an altitude of a little less than a degree (i.e., 2 solar diameters). At this point, ``continuous'' viewing is safe; but the Sun remains in sight for only 4 more minutes at low latitudes.

A more realistic calculation would allow for the additional attenuation by aerosols, which can be quite strong at the low altitudes mentioned here. In fact, the Sun is so attenuated at short wavelengths that the first people who tried to photograph sunset phenomena were continually frustrated by their inability to record an image of the Sun at the horizon on unsensitized photographic plates: see, for example, the paper by Riccò in the bibliography. The short, photochemically active wavelengths required for photography on unsensitized plates are the same ones responsible for photochemical retinal injury; if the setting Sun cannot be photographed at these wavelengths, it cannot possibly cause retinal injury.

After I did the calculations described above, I found that similar calculations had been made by

D. Sliney and H. Wolbarsht

Safety with Lasers and Other Optical Sources

(Plenum, New York, 1980)

On pp. 205-206, they say:

As sunset approaches, the relative fraction of blue light in this direct solar spectrum dramatically decreases as the sun nears the horizon. . . . [O]nce the total irradiance falls below 3 mW/cm2 (corresponding to an elevation angle of less than 5° at sunset in relatively clear weather), most people find it reasonably comfortable to look at a sunset which lasts for less than 10 minutes. . . . [They then go through a detailed calculation that need not be repeated here.] This would also explain why an individual who drives toward the sun at low elevation angles as he goes to and from work does not receive a retinal injury.

So, when the Sun is touching the sea horizon, it is certainly completely safe to look at. This is in accord with the experience of millions of people who have watched many seaside sunsets without harm.

Age effects

One consequence of the photochemical nature of retinal damage is that younger people are much more likely to suffer damage than older ones, because the lens and other media of the eye gradually become yellower with age, filtering out the most harmful short wavelengths. No doubt this helps explain Lowe's experience of being able to fixate the Sun without harm — an experiment he performed at the age of 56. Tso and La Piana's patients were likewise middle-aged. So it appears that older people are less likely to suffer eye damage from looking at the Sun.

This idea is supported by the age distribution of people who suffer solar retinitis at eclipses. According to the 1985 review article

Timothy H. Istock

Solar retinopathy: A review of the literature and case report

Journal of the American Optometric Association 56, 374-382 (1985)

a survey made after the 1970 eclipse showed that the average age of the 145 cases studied was 20.7 years.

Likewise, the median age of 20 victims of solar retinopathy suffered at the 1976 eclipse reported by

L. Rothkoff, A. Kushelevsky, M. Blumenthal

Solar retinopathy: Visual prognosis in 20 cases

Israel J. Med. Sci. 14, 238-243 (1978)

was only 15.5 years, with all but 3 being 18 or younger. The oldest of the 20 was 40 years old.

In other words, it may be possible for old geezers to look at the Sun for a few minutes, but, kids, don't try this yourself.

Telescopic observations

Retinal heating

Now, let's consider the hazards of using optical magnification. This introduces hazards of two kinds: a larger solar image on the retina, and a brighter illumination of the instrument's exit pupil. (The exit pupil of a telescope, also known as the ``Ramsden disk'', is the little circle of light, behind the eyepiece, through which you see into the instrument.)

The larger solar image on the retina produces more heating than in naked-eye observation, as shown by the calculations of White et al. Still assuming an eye pupil diameter of 3 mm, they find that a 25x telescope would produce a retinal temperature rise of 12°C in one second, and 34°C in 10 seconds. Both of these numbers exceed the threshold for retinal thermal damage. However, they assume the Sun in the zenith; for the Sun only 5° above the horizon, the heating rates are smaller by a factor of 4, which would push even the 10-second telescopic observation (just) below the threshold for thermal damage. The smaller image produced by low-power binoculars would be safer still.

Thus, while thermal damage to the retina can be produced in a few seconds if a telescope is used when the Sun is high in the sky, it is thermally safe to look at the Sun with binoculars when it is within a few degrees of the horizon.

Retinal photochemical damage

The photochemical hazard depends only on the image brightness, which (by a well-known theorem of optics) cannot be increased by an optical system. So, on the whole, using optical aid cannot significantly increase the photochemical hazard to the retina, and (if the instrument's exit pupil is small, and/or the instrument's transmission is significantly less than unity) may even decrease it.

I have argued above that the retina will not be damaged photochemically if the Sun is within a few degrees of the horizon. This conclusion remains true if optical aid is used, as any optical instrument (e.g., binoculars) can only make the retinal image dimmer, not brighter.

Heating of the iris

On the other hand, the bright exit pupil of a telescope can produce very rapid heating indeed. That is why solar filters are made to go over the telescope objective, rather than over the eyepiece. For example, a friend of mine once tried to use a dark welder's glass at the eyepiece of his telescope; he had put the glass over the eyepiece, and was just about to look in, when the welder's goggle exploded!

Let's have a look at the quantitative side of this problem. The diameter of the exit pupil of a telescope depends on the magnification of the eyepiece used, and is always the diameter of the entrance pupil (usually, the objective) divided by the magnification. So, with a magnification of 8x (typical for binoculars), the exit pupil is 1/8 the diameter of the objective.

But this means the power density and heating rate go up with the square of the magnification. For 8x binoculars, this factor is 64. But for a typical small telescope with a 100x eyepiece, this factor is 10,000. (No wonder my friend's dark glass filter exploded!)

Clearly, the hazard here is a pupil so bright it will burn the iris of the eye, even if the retinal image is still within safe bounds. And this hazard increases with the square of the magnification of ordinary telescopes and binoculars.

As the zenith solar irradiance at the surface of the Earth is about 0.1 watt/cm2, the brightness of the exit pupil of 8x binoculars is 64 times larger than this, or some 6.4 W/cm2, which is only a little less than the 6.7 W/cm2 retinal irradiance calculated by White et al. for the 25x telescope.

The heating of the retina is almost entirely due to absorption of radiation by the underlying pigment epithelium, which is only 0.01 mm thick. If the iris of the eye had its pigment concentrated in as thin a layer as the retinal pigment epithelium, the heating of the iris would be comparable to the numbers given above. Actually, the pigment in the iris is distributed over a greater depth; so we certainly overestimate the heating in making this comparison. This shows that the heating of the iris is certainly below the thermal damage threshold when binoculars are used to observe the Sun within 5° of the horizon.

Clearly, both the retina and the iris are below the threshold of injury when the Sun is viewed through binoculars within a few degrees of the horizon, but not when it is higher in the sky.

I agree that not all eyewitness accounts are not correct especially if the person (in this case the magician) is not willing to disclose his method. That is not the case with HRM. He is teaching his method to everyone for mental, physical and spiritual  benifits at with no charge. He has been investigated by many doctors.  He lectrues all over the world  and one can meet him or write to him with questions. And his teachings have been followed by thousands and so many people are willing to share the benifits they have received from sungazing.

It is amazing, how we all ( including me) find arguments to justify our beliefs rather than driving ourselves to find the real data. Just a thought  came to my mind that it is easy for use to accept a rear disease ( and there are hundreds of them with only a  few reported cases in  a million where medical science is clueless and has no expalnation. But we can accpet them very easily but can not accept the possiblity of a person living on sunlight even when a few medical doctors are willing to verify the claim. 

Vipul..

The problem with pereptions is that they aren't always correct, and therefore many eye witnesses accounts can't be taken as reliable.   If this was true, David Copperfield would really fly.

446836[/snapback]

447934[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.