PDA

View Full Version : Sungazing...WTF?


topaz
08-03-2011, 12:50 PM
Just watched a documentary on "sungazing". Any body have any first-hand knowledge of this? Do you know anyone who does it and claims to have benefitted from it without damaging their eyes?
The founder of one of the institutes (HRM) claims he doesn't even need to eat although he admitted later that he does actually consume some food at times.

yoyodyne
08-03-2011, 12:54 PM
It's total bullshit.

DrFidelius
08-03-2011, 01:02 PM
Flim-flam, bosh and twaddle. Last I checked, humans cannot photosynthesize no matter how much we want to wish for it.

Machine Elf
08-03-2011, 01:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungazing

Sungazers claim their eyes are capable of converting sunlight into energy for their bodies.

Made me laugh. A sedentary person dumps about 2400 watt-hours in a day. In direct sunlight, the eyes receive maybe 1-2 watts each. Even if we suppose their eyes couldconvert sunlight to metabolically useful energy, it would supply a negligible portion of the recipient's total caloric requirement.

jz78817
08-03-2011, 01:30 PM
first "planking," then "owling," now this. I never cease to be amazed at how many dumb people will copy what other dumb people are doing.

CookingWithGas
08-03-2011, 02:07 PM
They are preaching some dangerous shit (http://solarhealing.com/sungazing/). Present day teachings and ideas such as don’t look at the sunlight at all --you will damage your eyesight; never go out in the sun as you will get cancer, are causing needless hysteria and paranoia.

topaz
08-03-2011, 02:18 PM
According to the documentary there are congregations of people even churches that routinely stare for up to 44 minutes either at dawn or sunset. How are they not going blind? Some do it for other reasons, not just sustenance, they claim a deeply spiritual and life changing experience.

DrFidelius
08-03-2011, 02:24 PM
According to the documentary there are congregations of people even churches that routinely stare for up to 44 minutes either at dawn or sunset. How are they not going blind? Some do it for other reasons, not just sustenance, they claim a deeply spiritual and life changing experience.

At dawn and sunset the light is weakest - anyone can look at a sunset without eye protection. Did they have an opthamologist examine them for incipent eye damage?
People "claim a deeply spiritual and life changing experience[s]" from just about anything a human can do, up to and including taking a dump. The phrase is meaningless.

Erdosain
08-03-2011, 02:24 PM
Well, at least now I know what the ship's doctor in the movie Sunshine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_%282007_film%29) was doing.

Turek
08-03-2011, 02:39 PM
According to the documentary there are congregations of people even churches that routinely stare for up to 44 minutes either at dawn or sunset. How are they not going blind? Some do it for other reasons, not just sustenance, they claim a deeply spiritual and life changing experience.

According to the documentary, there's a witch that rides a broom around a castle made of emeralds and who commands flying monkeys.

DrFidelius
08-03-2011, 02:47 PM
To sate my curiosity, topaz, would you be able to give us the title of this documentary so we might have a chance to see just what it actually says? Not that I doubt your memory, but some things we like to see first-hand.

Ambivalid
08-03-2011, 02:52 PM
This seems legitimate to me. I'm kind of hungry right now, and the sun is peaking out from behind the clouds...LUNCHTIME!!!:cool:

Vinyl Turnip
08-03-2011, 02:52 PM
It's total bullshit.

I must admit I'm skeptical, but it would be nice to hear the "other side" from some practitioners of the art. Maybe one of them will fire up his voice recognition software and join the thread.

Sudden Kestrel
08-03-2011, 08:51 PM
It's called Eat the Sun (http://www.documentarychannel.com/movie.php?currID=9601&t=Eat%20The%20Sun). I half-watched it one day and quite enjoyed when one of the sungazers went to the eye doctor and found out how much damage he'd done to his eyes.

tellyworth
08-03-2011, 08:55 PM
Related: Inedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia).

griffin1977
08-03-2011, 09:04 PM
It's called Eat the Sun (http://www.documentarychannel.com/movie.php?currID=9601&t=Eat%20The%20Sun). I half-watched it one day and quite enjoyed when one of the sungazers went to the eye doctor and found out how much damage he'd done to his eyes.

If ever a movie's tag line, needed a small post fix:
Is it possible to stare directly into the sun and not eat food?
....no

Trinopus
08-03-2011, 09:58 PM
At dawn and sunset the light is weakest - anyone can look at a sunset without eye protection. . . .

Are there exceptions? For instance,what about on a very clear day, maybe in a desert? I've seen sunsets that were still painfully dazzling, even when the sun is partially below the horizon!

What about days that are misty or overcast? I've heard it said you shouldn't look at the sun, even if clouds or high fog reduce the brilliance so that it doesn't hurt. The claim -- maybe just an UL? -- is that the harm is not always accompanied by any sense of dazzle or of pain.

Trinopus

P.S. I have a sextant, and use it on occasion...with the sun filters securely in place!

pullin
08-03-2011, 10:08 PM
When I lived in Arizona, I worked with an idiot who bought into the whole vortex (http://www.lovesedona.com/01.htm) pseudo-religion. One of the things these morons did was called "sunning". They'd go out at lunch and try to stare at the sun for awhile. My particular cow-orker bought a weird electronic contraption that was supposed to bring him a hot wife (Seriously). He was supposed to put pictures of representative babes into the "computer" and wait for his hottie to arrive.

(She never did.)

I wonder if these two practices are related?

Cat Whisperer
08-03-2011, 10:25 PM
My conspiracy-theory brother-in-law was a proponent of this. I don't know if he still does it - he seems to eat a good dinner at Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving. :)

Mangetout
08-04-2011, 02:09 AM
Flim-flam, bosh and twaddle. Last I checked, humans cannot photosynthesize no matter how much we want to wish for it.

Nitpick (as this is the SDMB): humans do photosynthesise vitamin D, but not actual foods.

topaz
08-04-2011, 06:33 AM
Eating the Sun is the title of the doc I watched. I think you can see it in entirety on Youtube. It is two hours long and the second hour sums up what the narrator deduced from his study.
I guess they start out only looking at the sun for 10 seconds and move up from there.
These people do not seem like fruitcakes and the practitioners were very much convinced that what they were doing was beneficial.
There is an ophthalmologist practioner... an ophthalmologist that is very much convinced of this lifestyle.
This is the SMDB. Answers about witches, and castles and other ignorant references only demonstrate childish thinking.
My original question was: "Do you know anyone that has experience with this?".
I wasn't looking for the musings of Harry Potter fans.

Ferret Herder
08-04-2011, 06:57 AM
That was a Wizard of Oz reference, not a Harry Potter reference. I think the point was something along the lines of, "You can say whatever you want in a movie, but that doesn't make it so."

I work in ophthalmology, I am not a doctor or nurse. I'm 99% sure that if I asked any of the doctors I work with about this, they'd freak and say don't do that, and then expect that these devotees will all end up with irreversible damage if they continue. I mean, come on, the doctors I work with all recommend UV-blocking sunglasses just for going outside normally.

Mangetout
08-04-2011, 08:33 AM
...My original question was: "Do you know anyone that has experience with this?"...You might have been better off asking that question in IMHO.

topaz
08-04-2011, 08:45 AM
That was a Wizard of Oz reference, not a Harry Potter reference. I think the point was something along the lines of, "You can say whatever you want in a movie, but that doesn't make it so."

Bravo! You've demonstrated that you know the difference between two fairy tales!
This was a documentary, not a movie.
I wish someone with first hand knowledge of my original question would chime in.
I don't need to be told that the claims are preposterous- I want to hear from someone that knows first hand about this.

DrFidelius
08-04-2011, 09:02 AM
I believe Ferret Herder's point was that the documentary format for a film does not guarantee that the points presented are factual, regardless of the level of sincerity displayed by the participants.

Ferret Herder
08-04-2011, 09:38 AM
Thank you.

As for first-hand knowledge of someone who's tried it, you may be out of luck there. This does not sound like a widespread practice (thank goodness), and the board membership may not be large enough to include anyone who knows a current/former practitioner, sees this thread, reads it, and is willing to respond.

By the way, all of the side commentary, though apparently irritating to you, is serving to keep this thread higher up on the forum. No responses to it would have let the thread sink off the front page, where no one would have seen it unless you hope a stray Googler would have found it.

I would also note that your tone is acerbic enough that you may accidentally scare off anyone who might otherwise be willing to offer their anecdotes.

Ferret Herder
08-04-2011, 09:45 AM
Missed the edit window: I also intended to suggest that their ophthalmologist practitioner is... delusional, lying about his credentials, or something like that, and explain my reasoning why.

Boyo Jim
08-04-2011, 10:26 AM
That was a Wizard of Oz reference, not a Harry Potter reference. I think the point was something along the lines of, "You can say whatever you want in a movie, but that doesn't make it so."

Bravo! You've demonstrated that you know the difference between two fairy tales!
This was a documentary, not a movie.
I wish someone with first hand knowledge of my original question would chime in.
I don't need to be told that the claims are preposterous- I want to hear from someone that knows first hand about this.

Nobody with a lot of first-hand knowledge of this practice is going to be able to read your OP.

topaz
08-04-2011, 10:46 AM
You should watch the "Documentary" and then ask the questions about the veracity of the subjects. While I believe that HRM is somewhat of a fraud, he was caught eating in a restaurant and actually photographed there, it is hard to believe that the other subjects are trying to dupe us at the risk of anyone going blind.

Erdosain
08-04-2011, 10:49 AM
Nobody with a lot of first-hand knowledge of this practice is going to be able to read your OP.

Not true. Didn't you read Vinyl Turnip's post above (#13)? Or have you been eating the sun too!?! I knew it!

Erdosain
08-04-2011, 10:51 AM
You should watch the "Documentary" and then ask the questions about the veracity of the subjects. While I believe that HRM is somewhat of a fraud, he was caught eating in a restaurant and actually photographed there, it is hard to believe that the other subjects are trying to dupe us at the risk of anyone going blind.

Which is harder to believe? That these people are delusional or that they are not eating? Hmmm, let me think about that one for a long while.

DrFidelius
08-04-2011, 10:53 AM
Which is harder to believe? That these people are delusional or that they are not eating? Hmmm, let me think about that one for a long while.

Maybe they are just eating recreationally, for the fun of it, enjoying the flavours and textures and not because they need the nutrition.

DrFidelius
08-04-2011, 10:57 AM
You should watch the "Documentary" and then ask the questions about the veracity of the subjects. While I believe that HRM is somewhat of a fraud, he was caught eating in a restaurant and actually photographed there, it is hard to believe that the other subjects are trying to dupe us at the risk of anyone going blind.

Oh, I don't doubt that most of the practitioners are sincere in their belief that sungazing wil not cause any eye damage if done right. But, even if they are not being deliberately fraudulent ("trying to dupe us") it does not follow that they are right.
A person can be delusional and still strongly and sincerely believe in their delusions

topaz
08-04-2011, 11:56 AM
Oh, I don't doubt that most of the practitioners are sincere in their belief that sungazing wil not cause any eye damage if done right. But, even if they are not being deliberately fraudulent ("trying to dupe us") it does not follow that they are right.
A person can be delusional and still strongly and sincerely believe in their delusions

Delusional to the point of being spiritually and physically healthy. Kinda' like most religions.

Gary Robson
08-04-2011, 12:03 PM
Delusional to the point of being spiritually and physically healthy. Kinda' like most religions.
[mod note]
Keep the religious jabs out of GQ.
[/mod note]

DrFidelius
08-04-2011, 12:15 PM
Delusional to the point of being spiritually and physically healthy. Kinda' like most religions.

Yes. I have found that the folks most disconnected from reality often report the most satisfaction with their lives. I do not know how to measure spiritual health, but I do know that self-reported physical health condition is almost always inaccurate.

(Personal anecdote: A year ago I would have told you that I was in great health and felt wonderful. Since then I found that my blood sugar was nearly at the danger level, and I have lost forty pounds, and my blood work now is in line with my personal impressions of health. Now I am as healthy as I think I am.)

Chronos
08-04-2011, 12:27 PM
You asked if any of us know anything about this. As it happens, most of us not only know something about it, we know more than the people who practice it do. Why should we seek out the opinions of those who demonstrably know less about the topic?

Oh, does the knowledge have to be first-hand? OK, how about this: I (like everyone else on the planet) know from first-hand experience that looking straight at the Sun hurts. Pain is nature's way of telling us "don't do that". If we were "meant" to stare straight at the Sun, wouldn't you expect that it would feel good? For comparison, we're meant to eat, and eating does feel good.

topaz
08-04-2011, 12:33 PM
Yes. I have found that the folks most disconnected from reality often report the most satisfaction with their lives. I do not know how to measure spiritual health, but I do know that self-reported physical health condition is almost always inaccurate.

(Personal anecdote: A year ago I would have told you that I was in great health and felt wonderful. Since then I found that my blood sugar was nearly at the danger level, and I have lost forty pounds, and my blood work now is in line with my personal impressions of health. Now I am as healthy as I think I am.)

Seeing is believing. The subjects in the video were quite healthy. The main character in the film runs a wellness clinic. He does not follow the "no food" belief. The film is about his personal journey across America studying this practice and deciding if it is something he wants to continue following.

DrFidelius
08-04-2011, 12:45 PM
Seeing is believing. The subjects in the video were quite healthy. The main character in the film runs a wellness clinic. He does not follow the "no food" belief. The film is about his personal journey across America studying this practice and deciding if it is something he wants to continue following.

Indeed, "seeing is believing."
However, we have not seen any objective information about any persons reported to practice this behaviour.
We have so far seen nothing but a movie made by a self-described practitioner looking to affirm his beliefs.
There is a difference.

topaz
08-04-2011, 01:54 PM
Indeed, "seeing is believing."
However, we have not seen any objective information about any persons reported to practice this behaviour.
We have so far seen nothing but a movie made by a self-described practitioner looking to affirm his beliefs.
There is a difference.

Wrong.
The documentary was made by Paul Sorcher, an accredited film maker , ABOUT the main character.
IMDB classifies this as an Award Winning Film.

Boyo Jim
08-04-2011, 01:57 PM
There is no such thing as an "accredited" film maker. There may be film makers who are "credited" as making or participating in one or more films.

Vinyl Turnip
08-04-2011, 02:05 PM
IMDB classifies this as an Award Winning Film.

Yes, quite the trophy case of awards (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1424769/awards) it's racked up.

Boyo Jim
08-04-2011, 02:09 PM
According to IMDB, Peter Sorcher is credited with directing and producing Eat the Sun. He has no other production or direction credits. He has been an editor of 3 other films.

And while the the "storyline" blurb says "award winning" there is no mention that I can see of what this award might have been.

griffin1977
08-04-2011, 02:12 PM
There is an article about the director in his local paper here (http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_13457606?IADID=Search-www.marinij.com-www.marinij.com):

At one point, he had his eyes examined at the UCLA's Jules Stein Medical Center. The examination revealed that he had burned his macula, a small and highly sensitive part of the retina that allows people to see detail and perform tasks like reading.

The diagnosis threw Dwinell into a tailspin and threatened to put an end to the film.

Asked if he had any moral or ethical obligation to discourage Dwinell from continuing the documentary when the damage to his eyes became apparent, Sorcher answered, but only after a long and thoughtful pause.

"It wasn't my decision," he said eventually. "I didn't encourage or discourage him. If you have a burn on your macula, of course you're not going to keep looking at the sun. But when he said he was going to stop, I thought, 'Oh, no, there goes our film. I've got nothing now.' Selfishly I felt that immediately. But I gave him my support."

topaz
08-04-2011, 02:18 PM
Yes, quite the trophy case of awards (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1424769/awards) it's racked up.

I don't get it. I ask for people with experience to at least discuss this and I get what?
Jabs and jokes and responses from "experts" that must have slept in a Holiday Inn last night. "I know what I know, dammit! Don't ask me to prove it"
I've done some research and I know the difference between science and quackery but I have yet to be shown or found on my own that this has been dis-proven. This practice has been around in various forms for thousands of years. I am not defending the subject nor rejecting it, but the responses I have gotten don't seem to display critical thinking, only prejudice and the desire to defend one's opinion. And now its resorting to attacking references.
I'll not argue with fools.
People won't be able to tell us apart.:smack:

Turek
08-04-2011, 02:20 PM
Seeing is believing. The subjects in the video were quite healthy. The main character in the film runs a wellness clinic. He does not follow the "no food" belief. The film is about his personal journey across America studying this practice and deciding if it is something he wants to continue following.

Which goes back to my Wizard of Oz comment you poo-pooed. I can make ANY movie I want and call it a documentary. That doesn't make what's in the movie true.

Hell, rent a documentary called This Is Spinal Tap for example.

topaz
08-04-2011, 02:27 PM
I will now wait to reply after someone who has seen this film in its entirety has posted their opinion.

DrFidelius
08-04-2011, 02:38 PM
I will now wait to reply after someone who has seen this film in its entirety has posted their opinion.

Well, it may be a while before I have a free two hours to watch the film. After I leave work this afternoon I need to go home and do more work.
You may do better on another board than this - I do not believe there are many participants here who subscribe to this flavour of woo.

Sudden Kestrel
08-04-2011, 02:45 PM
I will now wait to reply after someone who has seen this film in its entirety has posted their opinion.

I actually did watch this film. (My mention of half-watching above indicated that I was reading at the same time, as I usually do.) I found it to be quite interesting as I had never heard of sungazing. However, I have seen mention of similar practices like people who say they can absorb nutrients from the air and claim they no longer eat. I have never seen anything resembling objective evidence that those practices worked, and I did not see anything that could remotely be called evidence in this documentary either. Yes, the people looked healthy. Yes, some of them claimed they never ate any actual food. There was no proof provided of those claims, however.

You might get answers more to your liking from one of the references mentioned in the documentary. I believe the film referred repeatedly to a Yahoo sungazing group, so you could see if that still exists. They also mentioned the name of their "guru" multiple times (though it escapes me ATM), and you might try looking him up. I'm sure he'd be happy to offer his thoughts, for a fee.

Lestrade
08-04-2011, 02:57 PM
I don't get it. I ask for people with experience to at least discuss this and I get what?
Jabs and jokes and responses from "experts" that must have slept in a Holiday Inn last night. "I know what I know, dammit! Don't ask me to prove it"
I've done some research and I know the difference between science and quackery but I have yet to be shown or found on my own that this has been dis-proven.
[snip]


This practice simply cannot work. Asking for people with experience is like asking for people with working perpetual motion machines.

Smeghead
08-04-2011, 03:04 PM
I don't get it. I ask for people with experience to at least discuss this and I get what?
Jabs and jokes and responses from "experts" that must have slept in a Holiday Inn last night. "I know what I know, dammit! Don't ask me to prove it"
I've done some research and I know the difference between science and quackery but I have yet to be shown or found on my own that this has been dis-proven.

Let me repeat what is surely one of the most oft-quoted statements around here. It is not up to US, the reasonable people of the world, to go out of our way to disprove whatever latest batch of nonsense some lunatic plops onto the internet. The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. That is, if YOU (generic YOU there) are claiming that food is unnecessary and we can get all of the energy we need by staring at the sun, it is not MY job to go disprove it. It is YOUR job to provide evidence for your claim.

I'm a scientist. I'm working on my own PhD. Do you know how much of a living I'd make spending all my time knocking down all these nonsensical "theories" that crop up like mushrooms? Even LESS than working as a scientist, if you can believe it.

Vinyl Turnip
08-04-2011, 03:05 PM
I am not defending the subject nor rejecting it, but the responses I have gotten don't seem to display critical thinking, only prejudice and the desire to defend one's opinion. And now its resorting to attacking references.

Just pointing out---since you called attention to its IMDb status as an "award winning film" (which implies some degree of legitimacy, right?)---that the only award it appears to have won is the IMDb "Least Number of Awards" award.

Boyo Jim
08-04-2011, 03:13 PM
You mention watching a documentary you don't even name -- and still haven't, leaving it up to others to find it.

You pulled "accredited film maker" out of nowhere. AFAICT he has never made any other film.

You say that IMDB "classifies this as an Award Winning film", which it doesn't.

Here is Peter Sorcher's statement about the film (http://www.eatthesunmovie.com/director_s_statement.html), which includes this:

When we took Mason for an extensive eye exam and they found a burn in the center of his retinas, he was disheartened and discouraged and he stopped sungazing. Why he ultimately decided to continue sungazing to reach HRM’s goal of 44 minutes and risk even further eye damage was testament that he was after something bigger than the physical.

How about that? Is that "first-hand" enough?

Mangetout
08-04-2011, 03:26 PM
This practice simply cannot work. Asking for people with experience is like asking for people with working perpetual motion machines.

Concur. The op is being unreasonable. In order for the human body to absorb its daily energy requirement in the space of two hours, it would have to soak it up at approximately the same rate as emitted by a good domestic microwave oven for that period. There are straightaway two big problems with this:

Even the brightest midday equatorial sunlight does not deliver anywhere near that amount of energy to an area as small as the eyes.

And if it did, it would cook the eyes to charcoal in seconds or minutes.

Its a claim that cannot possibly have amy basis in reality.

DrFidelius
08-04-2011, 04:41 PM
Or, if he is looking for a devotional object or a focus for meditation, there are any number of alternatives to the Sun where you do not risk damaging your vision. "Spiritual health" seemed to be one of the OP's foma; a less dangerous wampeter can be found than the Sun itself.

Gary Robson
08-04-2011, 04:52 PM
Since this has moved well beyond GQ territory, I have moved the thread to Great Debates.

Gary Robson
08-04-2011, 05:10 PM
I'll not argue with fools.[mod note]
Personal insults are not allowed outside the Pit.
[/mod note]

Czarcasm
08-04-2011, 05:12 PM
Just watched a documentary on "sungazing". Any body have any first-hand knowledge of this? Do you know anyone who does it and claims to have benefitted from it without damaging their eyes?
The founder of one of the institutes (HRM) claims he doesn't even need to eat although he admitted later that he does actually consume some food at times.I honestly cannot think of one single member of the SDMB that I would consider dumb enough to believe in nonsense of this caliber.

Ambivalid
08-04-2011, 09:06 PM
Do they consider the moonlight to be "dessert"?

Una Persson
08-04-2011, 10:05 PM
I honestly cannot think of one single member of the SDMB that I would consider dumb enough to believe in nonsense of this caliber.
And I honestly never thought of you as being that charitable. I've seen dumber things believed by "popular" posters on here.

griffin1977
08-04-2011, 10:41 PM
Was reading the article (http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_13457606?IADID=Search-www.marinij.com-www.marinij.com)I posted above again and found this little nugget of wisdom from the director of that film:

But I found that in making this film there are other ways of thinking that don't necessarily coexist with science or with what one might call rational thinking.

I'm sorry, regardless of how you feel about religion and spirituality, there is only one way of thinking about the question "is it a good idea to give up eating and stare at the sun instead" that makes any sense at all, and its the rational, scientific way, that answers "no".

Una Persson
08-04-2011, 11:02 PM
I think what burns me the most about these idiots trying to illuminate themselves by staring at the sun - something that even the birds and beasts of the field know better than to do - is when they do finally go blind, guess whose taxes will be funding their disability checks?

Erdosain
08-04-2011, 11:06 PM
I think what burns me the most about these idiots trying to illuminate themselves by staring at the sun - something that even the birds and beasts of the field know better than to do - is when they do finally go blind, guess whose taxes will be funding their disability checks?

Look on the bright side, at least we won't have to pay for their food stamps. Just a little water and an occasional bag of mulch.

Boyo Jim
08-04-2011, 11:10 PM
Look on the bright side, at least we won't have to pay for their food stamps. Just a little water and an occasional bag of mulch.

The even better news is that they won't last too long. we're forgetting about their chances of melanoma.

Una Persson
08-04-2011, 11:10 PM
Look on the bright side, at least we won't have to pay for their food stamps. Just a little water and an occasional bag of mulch.
True...and they'll become carbon sinks!

Mangetout
08-05-2011, 02:14 AM
The OP might wish to do a board search on the term breatharian,as this topic has been discussed a number of times previously. I don't recall anyone finding it remotely plausible.

PlainJain
08-05-2011, 03:01 AM
What's wrong with just, you know... eating? Will God like me more if I don't?

Mangetout
08-05-2011, 03:20 AM
What's wrong with just, you know... eating? Will God like me more if I don't?

You know, that's a good question. Are these people just the extreme end of the scale of picky eaters?

Der Trihs
08-05-2011, 03:25 AM
What's wrong with just, you know... eating? Will God like me more if I don't?
I expect it's the whole "I am above the concerns of the material world and thus superior" mentality.

topaz
08-05-2011, 07:05 AM
I actually did watch this film. (My mention of half-watching above indicated that I was reading at the same time, as I usually do.) I found it to be quite interesting as I had never heard of sungazing. However, I have seen mention of similar practices like people who say they can absorb nutrients from the air and claim they no longer eat. I have never seen anything resembling objective evidence that those practices worked, and I did not see anything that could remotely be called evidence in this documentary either. Yes, the people looked healthy. Yes, some of them claimed they never ate any actual food. There was no proof provided of those claims, however.

You might get answers more to your liking from one of the references mentioned in the documentary. I believe the film referred repeatedly to a Yahoo sungazing group, so you could see if that still exists. They also mentioned the name of their "guru" multiple times (though it escapes me ATM), and you might try looking him up. I'm sure he'd be happy to offer his thoughts, for a fee.'

Don't treat me like a fool. If you would read the original post you would see that I found the character's (HRM) claim that he did not require food was laughable. The documentary covered a wide range of practitioners with different approaches to the subject. Do you not remember the comedic scene when HRM was confronted after being photographed in the Indian restaurant? Oh, that's right you were "multi-tasking".
My approach to this documentary was more towards soliciting a reply from people who had experienced positive or negative results after trying this lifestyle. The benefits purported by them are along the lines of SAD therapy. Light therapy has been around for thousands of years.
What I found most difficult to believe was the colossal amount of ignorant responses I tapped into with this post.
"Oh brave new world...." I'll take my soma now and shut up.

DrFidelius
08-05-2011, 07:17 AM
'

Don't treat me like a fool. If you would read the original post you would see that I found the character's (HRM) claim that he did not require food was laughable. The documentary covered a wide range of practitioners with different approaches to the subject. Do you not remember the comedic scene when HRM was confronted after being photographed in the Indian restaurant? Oh, that's right you were "multi-tasking".
My approach to this documentary was more towards soliciting a reply from people who had experienced positive or negative results after trying this lifestyle. The benefits purported by them are along the lines of SAD therapy. Light therapy has been around for thousands of years.
What I found most difficult to believe was the colossal amount of ignorant responses I tapped into with this post.
"Oh brave new world...." I'll take my soma now and shut up.

Then why not ask "Does sitting in the sunlight make you feel better?" There was no reason to bring in this woo-woo documentary, following some extreme nutters, if all you you thought you were asking about is light therapy.

Given a minute or two of Googling I am sure we can find all sorts of studies that show improvement in moods with exposure to light. You don't need to collect personal anecdotes from fringe practitioners to get data. In fact, personal testimonials are one of the worst ways to learn whether a health regime actually works.

You poisoned this well yourself by starting out asking about the whackos.

Czarcasm
08-05-2011, 07:30 AM
'

Don't treat me like a fool. If you would read the original post you would see that I found the character's (HRM) claim that he did not require food was laughable. The documentary covered a wide range of practitioners with different approaches to the subject. Do you not remember the comedic scene when HRM was confronted after being photographed in the Indian restaurant? Oh, that's right you were "multi-tasking".
My approach to this documentary was more towards soliciting a reply from people who had experienced positive or negative results after trying this lifestyle. The benefits purported by them are along the lines of SAD therapy. Light therapy has been around for thousands of years.
What I found most difficult to believe was the colossal amount of ignorant responses I tapped into with this post.
"Oh brave new world...." I'll take my soma now and shut up.Using SAD Therapy to justify looking seriously at this "sungazing" woo just because they both involve light is the equivalent of using acupuncture as an excuse to take voodoo dolls serious because they both use pins.

Erdosain
08-05-2011, 07:44 AM
I'm still trying to figure out what response would satisfy the increasingly agitated OP. Ten people recounting their experiences staring at the sun? "It really helped my mood, but the going blind part brought me down again."

It seems to me that a necessarily small portion of the general population would be stupid enough to try this in the first place, and the overlap between that population and denizens of a board generally hostile to the supernatural would be zero. Plus, as VT and others have pointed out, the fact that practitioners are guaranteed to have eye damage makes demanding their presence on an Internet website problematic and comedic.

So, for fast food, do these people go to a tanning salon? Or just keep a sun lamp in the car?

Czarcasm
08-05-2011, 08:06 AM
The documentary was made by Paul Sorcher, an accredited film maker , ABOUT the main character.
IMDB classifies this as an Award Winning Film.You are upset because we aren't taking this seriously?
1. It is hard to take your request seriously when you try to pass off the above as fact, then repeatedly refuse to back off from your claims.
2. We are serious enough not to give this very dangerous woo any credit what so ever. The only publicity they deserve is bad publicity, and we are refusing to look at the supposed positive side of going blind and starving to death.

Vinyl Turnip
08-05-2011, 08:19 AM
My approach to this documentary was more towards soliciting a reply from people who had experienced positive or negative results after trying this lifestyle.

Try to take your disappointment in stride. I once started a thread to debate the pros and cons of cyanide therapy, and not a single person who'd participated in the ritual bothered to show up.

Czarcasm
08-05-2011, 08:23 AM
Try to take your disappointment in stride. I once started a thread to debate the pros and cons of cyanide therapy, and not a single person who'd participated in the ritual bothered to show up.So the results so far are 50/50?

DrFidelius
08-05-2011, 08:32 AM
Try to take your disappointment in stride. I once started a thread to debate the pros and cons of cyanide therapy, and not a single person who'd participated in the ritual bothered to show up.

However, several married people did report the results on their spouses.

Boyo Jim
08-05-2011, 08:51 AM
However, several married people did report the results on their spouses.

I bet they were all pretty happy with the results.

Crazyhorse
08-05-2011, 08:53 AM
"... and if you saw their wife you'd stare into the sun too." (Thank you, I'll be here all week.)

Peremensoe
08-05-2011, 08:58 AM
nm

Chessic Sense
08-05-2011, 10:06 AM
Look on the bright side

That's what started the whole mess in the first place!

Czarcasm
08-05-2011, 10:15 AM
Using SAD Therapy to justify looking seriously at this "sungazing" woo just because they both involve light is the equivalent of using acupuncture as an excuse to take voodoo dolls serious because they both use pins.In case anyone thought that I was using acupuncture as an example because I think it is valid, well...let's just say that I think it is about as valid and proven a technique as sun therapy, and leave it at that.

DrFidelius
08-05-2011, 10:27 AM
In case anyone thought that I was using acupuncture as an example because I think it is valid, well...let's just say that I think it is about as valid and proven a technique as sun therapy, and leave it at that.

The dose makes the poison. Even if exposure to full-spectrum light is therapeutically advantageous in some case of depression (what most light treatments are) it does not follow that staring at the sun for extended periods of time is good for a person.

Digitalis is a good substance to treat some heart problems. This does not mean that anyone should start including foxglove salads in their diets.

(To be clear, I am not disagreeing with you, I am just trying to expand the image.)

topaz
08-05-2011, 02:29 PM
You are upset because we aren't taking this seriously?
1. It is hard to take your request seriously when you try to pass off the above as fact, then repeatedly refuse to back off from your claims.
2. We are serious enough not to give this very dangerous woo any credit what so ever. The only publicity they deserve is bad publicity, and we are refusing to look at the supposed positive side of going blind and starving to death.

I am only curious why no one has attempted to discuss this rationally. I never professed to believe the claim that one could live off the sun nutritionally. The effects, however, of looking into the sun and the damage it can cause has been collected by Dr. Andrew T. Young, a professor in the Astronomy Department at San Diego State University. You can read it yourself here:

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

I'm willing to bet you won't read it in its entirety. There aren't any jokes, just research and science. It is not about sungazing but it does describe looking at the sun in a safe angle.

I am surprised that none of you has anything constructive to say and is more than wiling to post on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
It is laughable that you consider yourselves intellectuals.
I'll know better than to expect constructive dialogue from this forum in the future.
Shame on you.

EinsteinsHund
08-05-2011, 02:47 PM
I am only curious why no one has attempted to discuss this rationally.

Why don't you understand that for every rational being on this planet, the two main aspects of "sunglazing", staring for several minutes into the sun, and feeding on sunlight, are totally, obviously irrational points which make examining the subject further unnecessary?

Czarcasm
08-05-2011, 03:00 PM
I am only curious why no one has attempted to discuss this rationally. I never professed to believe the claim that one could live off the sun nutritionally. The effects, however, of looking into the sun and the damage it can cause has been collected by Dr. Andrew T. Young, a professor in the Astronomy Department at San Diego State University. You can read it yourself here:

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

I'm willing to bet you won't read it in its entirety. There aren't any jokes, just research and science. It is not about sungazing but it does describe looking at the sun in a safe angle.

I am surprised that none of you has anything constructive to say and is more than wiling to post on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
It is laughable that you consider yourselves intellectuals.
I'll know better than to expect constructive dialogue from this forum in the future.
Shame on you.I read through your link...which provided numerous cites showing how dangerous prolonged staring at the sun can be. If we joke, it's because we can't think of anyone in their right mind who would spend more than a minute of their time before determining that the premise of receiving nutrition by staring at the sun is (warning: tech speak) Bull Goose Loony. There simply aren't two sides worth looking into, period.

Lemur866
08-05-2011, 03:02 PM
I am only curious why no one has attempted to discuss this rationally. I never professed to believe the claim that one could live off the sun nutritionally. The effects, however, of looking into the sun and the damage it can cause has been collected by Dr. Andrew T. Young, a professor in the Astronomy Department at San Diego State University. You can read it yourself here:

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

I'm willing to bet you won't read it in its entirety. There aren't any jokes, just research and science. It is not about sungazing but it does describe looking at the sun in a safe angle.

I am surprised that none of you has anything constructive to say and is more than wiling to post on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
It is laughable that you consider yourselves intellectuals.
I'll know better than to expect constructive dialogue from this forum in the future.
Shame on you.

Yawn.

You seriuosly expected to find a bunch of sungazers here on the Dope who would be willing to discuss their positive and negative experiences of sungazing?

No, you did not expect to find sungazers here. You're only pretending. You are not a serious person, because a serious person, even if they really were actually interested in sungazing, wouldn't expect to find a bunch of sungazers here. You'd have to go to some sungazing message board instead. Here, I found a sungazing thread on a woo-woo site with a few seconds of googling: http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/health-fitness/23984-i-discovered-something-beyond-raw-food-diet.html

Enjoy your testimonials!

Der Trihs
08-05-2011, 03:03 PM
I am only curious why no one has attempted to discuss this rationally. I never professed to believe the claim that one could live off the sun nutritionally. Then you shouldn't have started by talking about people who do. To quote:

Just watched a documentary on "sungazing". Any body have any first-hand knowledge of this? Do you know anyone who does it and claims to have benefitted from it without damaging their eyes?
The founder of one of the institutes (HRM) claims he doesn't even need to eat although he admitted later that he does actually consume some food at times.That's you asking specifically about these nuts who think you can feed off the Sun and look at it without harm. Not about the benefits or lack thereof of just sitting in the Sun.

I am surprised that none of you has anything constructive to say and is more than wiling to post on a subject you obviously know nothing about."Don't do this, it's dangerously stupid and can permanently injure you or kill you" is a very constructive thing to say.

Marley23
08-05-2011, 03:22 PM
I am surprised that none of you has anything constructive to say and is more than wiling to post on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
It is laughable that you consider yourselves intellectuals.
I'll know better than to expect constructive dialogue from this forum in the future.
Shame on you.
Enough. Another moderator already told you that you can't insult other people in this forum. This is a formal warning.

griffin1977
08-05-2011, 03:30 PM
I am only curious why no one has attempted to discuss this rationally. I never professed to believe the claim that one could live off the sun nutritionally. The effects, however, of looking into the sun and the damage it can cause has been collected by Dr. Andrew T. Young, a professor in the Astronomy Department at San Diego State University. You can read it yourself here:

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

I'm willing to bet you won't read it in its entirety. There aren't any jokes, just research and science. It is not about sungazing but it does describe looking at the sun in a safe angle.

I am surprised that none of you has anything constructive to say and is more than wiling to post on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
It is laughable that you consider yourselves intellectuals.
I'll know better than to expect constructive dialogue from this forum in the future.
Shame on you.
OK from your OWN link its clear, and the Galileo only observed the sun at sunset (which IS still dangerous, but less so), and gave up entirely when his pupil Benedetto Castellidiscovered the projection technique (whereby the light from the sun is projected from the telescope onto a peice of paper):

And, once his student has developed the projection technique, which allows observations to be made at any time — in particular, in the middle of the day, when the Sun is more likely to be in the clear — Galileo sends with his second letter a set of daily drawings of the Sun, for every day in June but three! (This is remarkable: climatological data for Florence in June show that, on the average, there are 7 rainy days in that month, and only 66% of the possible hours of sunshine. Many of these observations must have been made between clouds in the middle of the day. For comparison, June is “fog season” in San Diego; the local weatherpeople on TV refer to “June gloom.”) So, switching from direct observation to projection immediately allowed Galileo to follow the motion of the spots across the Sun in detail, day by day.

Peremensoe
08-05-2011, 03:35 PM
Here, I found a sungazing thread on a woo-woo site with a few seconds of googling: http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/health-fitness/23984-i-discovered-something-beyond-raw-food-diet.html

Enjoy your testimonials!

Heh. Didja notice the one poster there who said,

Errrmm, I don't want to be *that guy* but don't you have to be a plant for this to work?

Everybody seems to ignore him, and then sometime later he was banned. :p

Actually I'm disheartened to see the level of credulity even there. I know, I know.

spingears
08-05-2011, 03:53 PM
IF you are a holy man from India, Gase away. In a matter of a few days you will be totally bilind, but still follow the sun from dawn till sunset, seeing nothing else.

Mangetout
08-05-2011, 04:12 PM
It is laughable that you consider yourselves intellectuals.
I'll know better than to expect constructive dialogue from this forum in the future.
Shame on you.

Whoever said anything about what anyone here considers themelf? This is the sort of thing someone would say if they came here to yank chains.

Odesio
08-05-2011, 04:28 PM
As an undergraduate I did an Anthropology project involving raw foodist. One of my informants believed that it would one day be possible for her to stop eating and receive all of her nutritional needs from sunlight and water. Unfortunately, I didn't really have the opportunity to learn more from her.

Bryan Ekers
08-05-2011, 05:37 PM
Do they consider the moonlight to be "dessert"?

...mmmmmm..... moon pie.....

Sudden Kestrel
08-05-2011, 08:42 PM
'

Don't treat me like a fool. If you would read the original post you would see that I found the character's (HRM) claim that he did not require food was laughable. The documentary covered a wide range of practitioners with different approaches to the subject. Do you not remember the comedic scene when HRM was confronted after being photographed in the Indian restaurant? Oh, that's right you were "multi-tasking".
My approach to this documentary was more towards soliciting a reply from people who had experienced positive or negative results after trying this lifestyle. The benefits purported by them are along the lines of SAD therapy. Light therapy has been around for thousands of years.
What I found most difficult to believe was the colossal amount of ignorant responses I tapped into with this post.
"Oh brave new world...." I'll take my soma now and shut up.

Geez, Larry, settle down there. You did ask for input from people who had seen the film, no? And I did direct you toward a source mentioned in the same film you referenced that would most likely provide you with replies from "people who had experienced positive or negative results" of this, um, therapy, did I not? Have you even bothered to check with people who publicly proclaim they have experimented with sungazing, or is it just more fun for you to hang around here poking people with your rather unimpressive stick?

Bryan Ekers
08-05-2011, 08:50 PM
Sounds to me like somebody assumed neutrinos were nutritious.

DocCathode
08-05-2011, 08:55 PM
Sounds to me like somebody assumed neutrinos were nutritious.

Neutrinos are stuck up bastards. No matter what I do, they just won't interact with me.

tomndebb
08-05-2011, 11:34 PM
I am only curious why no one has attempted to discuss this rationally.Because the vast majority of posters in this forum have at least a high school education and most of us have at least some college and a few of us have advanced degrees.

What you have posted, (without providing a single bit of evidentiary support), violates any number of biological and physical laws. If you ask us to comment on the "phenomenon," we are going to simply look at the claims with a rational perspective founded on some basic education about the real world.

If someone came to you and proposed that they had perfected the art of only inhaling, never exhaling, to the point that they could now float into the atmosphere, how much effort would you put into trying to understand their claim or "discussing it rationally"? One supposes that you have a high school education and sufficient intelligence to power up a computer and navigate to the internet. Therefore, one would suppose that you are already aware that inflating your lungs with regular air, just like blowing up a balloon with your lungs, simply compresses normal air into a heavier form and that it will not float, just as a balloon blown up by mouth does not float. You need a gas that is actually lighter than air, (hydrogen, helium, methane), to float and you need to displace enough volume of the air to counter your weight and your lungs are certainly not large enough to do that. What sort of "discussion" would you choose to have with a proponent of "inhaling to the point of floating away?

Why should the posters, here, react differently to your odd claims?
You are also wrong to claim that no one has "attempted to discuss this rationally." Why are you ignoring the post that noted that the amount of energy that could be absorbed by the eye was orders of magnitude less that that required to animate a body?

I am surprised that none of you has anything constructive to say and is more than wiling to post on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
It is laughable that you consider yourselves intellectuals.
I'll know better than to expect constructive dialogue from this forum in the future.
Shame on you.On the contrary. The posts in this thread indicate that the participants are very much aware of the topic: they are aware that it is bullshit and they understand why it is bullshit. Do you? Why have you completely ignored the serious answers that were provided? If you wondered why everyone was being so dismissive, why did you not simply ask for a clear explanation regarding energy transfer from the sun to humans? You opened the thread with a claim that you did not necessarily believe the kooks making the claims, but all your subsequent posts have either attempted to defend the kooks or attacked the posters on this board. That gives rise to the strong suspicion that you really are a believer. Since the claim is ludicrous, physically and biologically, your apparent defense of the kooks suggests that you are less interested in the facts than in spreading their "message." That, too, will invite more than a bit of humorous response. If you really are out spreading their message, then the shame would fall on you.

Left Hand of Dorkness
08-05-2011, 11:46 PM
Maybe they are just eating recreationally, for the fun of it, enjoying the flavours and textures and not because they need the nutrition.

Okay, so obviously the sun-eaters are idiots. Moving on, I followed a couple Wikipedia links and ended up at the Breatharian Institute (http://www.breatharian.com/fivemagicwords.html).

These are folks who think that you can get all your nutrition from air, eventually. As for mocking them, well, some people you can't make fun of, you just quote 'em:
Do the meditation exersize before drinking lots of diet coke in the 20 oz and 1 liter sizes (with caffeine) in the plastic bottles only. Along with a double-quarter-pounder/with cheese meal at McDonald's only. Always meditate 30 mins to an hour before eating. Try to eat at least one meal a day for a while. Go back to my web site periodically to see if you can start to feel the magic after reading a few paragraphs.

IMPORTANT NOTE: DO NOT DRINK WATER OF ANY KIND OR FROM ANY SOURCE AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY,DO NOT EAT ANY FRUITS OR VEGETABLES DOING THIS REGIME!!!

Czarcasm
08-05-2011, 11:51 PM
Quarter Pounders and 1 liter bottles of diet Coke? How many college students are Breatharians and just don't realize it?

Der Trihs
08-05-2011, 11:56 PM
Quarter Pounders and 1 liter bottles of diet Coke? How many college students are Breatharians and just don't realize it?You only think you're joking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breatharian#Wiley_Brooks)

Wiley Brooks is founder of the Breatharian Institute of America. He was first introduced to the public in 1980 when appearing on the TV show That's Incredible!.[22] Brooks stopped teaching recently to "devote 100% of his time on solving the problem as to why he needed to eat some type of food to keep his physical body alive and allow his light body to manifest completely."[23] Brooks claims to have found "four major deterrents" which prevented him from living without food: "people pollution", "food pollution", "air pollution" and "electro pollution".[23]

In 1983 he was reportedly observed leaving a Santa Cruz 7-Eleven with a Slurpee, hot dog and Twinkies.[24] He told Colors magazine in 2003 that he periodically breaks his fasting with a cheeseburger and a cola, explaining that when he's surrounded by junk culture and junk food, consuming them adds balance.[25]Some things just can't be parodied.

Crazyhorse
08-05-2011, 11:59 PM
This blog (http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/people-stare-at-the-sun-on-purpose/) pretty well sums up why the "two sides" of this issue aren't getting equal attention: There is only one side to this issue.

Thanks to some “new age” spiritualists, I bring you an old, but new to me, practice of pseudoscience. What is special about today’s bogusness is that there is little room for interpretation on this one. There are no muddy studies to pour over, no controversies to weigh, just an ancient practice that physically harms you.and

These kind of rituals have found a home in the new age mindset. New agers take the findings and theories of modern science, and extrapolate them far beyond that which is either feasible or proven (like "quantum consciousness" or something equally pseudosciencey sounding). What this results in is people believing they can photosynthesize, or stare at the sun and not eat, and putting themselves in harm’s way to satisfy an ancient ritual.As to quarter pounders for Breatharians, the Sungazers apparently prefer Burger King:

It should also be noted that there have been skeptics who have challenged these practitioners to prove that they can receive all of their nutrients from the sun. With one million dollars on the line, a crony was caught sneaking Burger King to the sun-gazing challenger.

spingears
08-08-2011, 11:43 AM
You might have been better off asking that question in IMHO.

Au contrair. Not a matter of opinion at all. Just simple hard facts. Any reputable opthomoligist will tell you NOT TO LOOK AT THE SUN. Doing so will do irreparable damage to the retina of the eye.

Holy men of India practice this daily from sun up to sundown, are blind as a bat to their surroundings, seeing nothing at all.

Help yourself if you want to go blind, otherwise wear good sunglasses. They provide protection from glare. Not to be used to look at the sun.

Welder's helmelt filters in the darkest shade available (#12) IIRC is what to ask for at the welders supply shop.

OneMissedPost
08-08-2011, 01:41 PM
Even when I was a kid, I was told not to stare directly at the sun. I don't really think this has to do with lack of education. This has to do with being 100% delusional. I'm talking about delusional to the point where I highly doubt there would be cure. I don't even think many years of intense therapy would help. This is almost as bad as believing that there is a boogeyman under the bed.

Mangetout
08-08-2011, 03:57 PM
Au contrair. Not a matter of opinion at all.

Au contraire yerself. Inasmuch as the question was supposedly "has anyone had any experience of this?", it's suited to IMHO.

The risks have nothing to do with the choice of forum: "Have you ever tried drilling holes in your head?" is a question for the IMHO forum.

Boyo Jim
08-08-2011, 05:23 PM
Au contraire yerself. Inasmuch as the question was supposedly "has anyone had any experience of this?", it's suited to IMHO.

The risks have nothing to do with the choice of forum: "Have you ever tried drilling holes in your head?" is a question for the IMHO forum.

Actually, as a question with a factual answer, it should be in GQ.

Mangetout
08-09-2011, 02:00 AM
Not usefully. The GQ answer to "has anyone had experience of sungazing?" Is "yes someone has."

I'm not unaware that there are facts about sungazing which are ripe for description in GQ, nor that sungazers make claims that are appropriate for debate in GD. But neither of those scenarios are what I'm talking about.

topaz
08-09-2011, 01:58 PM
This WAS originally posted in GQ. When it turned into a farcical circus, completely off topic, it was moved to GD.
One only need read the original post to see how it has digressed to the point where the original question was not answered. Most posters seemed to be more interested in debating the question than trying to provide any type of informed answer.
I merely asked if anyone had any experience or knew of anyone that practices Sungazing. I never received any answer from anyone with any first hand knowledge but plenty of answers from people that condemn the question itself.

Marley23
08-09-2011, 02:12 PM
One only need read the original post to see how it has digressed to the point where the original question was not answered. Most posters seemed to be more interested in debating the question than trying to provide any type of informed answer.
If you only wanted responses from people who have actually engaged in this practice, you should probably tried a forum devoted to sungazing, if there is one, or similar practices. I know you're to the Straight Dope forums, but there's just no way that any committed sungazers hang out on this message board. That being said, you received a lot of replies that were on topic and relevant even if you did not get what you want. (There's a song about that.) And frankly I'm surprised you had such a problem with the disparagement of sungazing. Aside from the fact that the concept is absurd, you titled the thread "Sungazing...WTF?" That suggests a little skepticism from you, too.

If no one else has anything to add to this thread except discussions of what forum it should have been posted in or more complaints from the OP about the responses he got, I will lock this.

Captain Amazing
08-09-2011, 02:14 PM
Regarding the question of "awardwinning", I contacted the director to ask him about it, and he responded that Eat The Sun won the Jury Award at the United Chicago Film Festival. I wrote back to him to see what he thought about Mason Dwinell and the whole Sungazing movement but haven't gotten a response.

topaz
08-09-2011, 02:26 PM
Just watched a documentary on "sungazing". Any body have any first-hand knowledge of this? Do you know anyone who does it and claims to have benefitted from it without damaging their eyes?
The founder of one of the institutes (HRM) claims he doesn't even need to eat although he admitted later that he does actually consume some food at times.

This is the original question. As you can plainly see I asked if anyone had any first hand knowledge or knew anyone that had practiced it. I wanted answers from objective observers, not people from a website with obvious biases.
I can't figure out why this question was so easily misunderstood.
I even got jokes from moderators. Sheesh!

Boyo Jim
08-09-2011, 02:32 PM
Please note post #53. The film director has acknowledged accompanying the subject of the film to an eye exam where they learned his retinas were burned. That should certainly answer the question of whether eye damage will result from the practice, and it's as close to first hand as you are likely to get. That is aside from any conceivable benefit from doing it, of course.

Marley23
08-09-2011, 02:35 PM
I can't figure out why this question was so easily misunderstood.
It wasn't misunderstood at all. People who did not have direct or second-hand experience with sungazing contributed what information they had. This is usually called "helping," although it apparently did not live up to your lofty expectations. If you think this forum is biased, then starting a thread here was a very strange decision.

If you continue complaining in this thread (instead of the Pit, where that kind of thing belongs), at minimum you'll be warned for violating my instructions.

Chessic Sense
08-09-2011, 03:01 PM
This is the original question. As you can plainly see I asked if anyone had any first hand knowledge or knew anyone that had practiced it. I wanted answers from objective observers, not people from a website with obvious biases.
I can't figure out why this question was so easily misunderstood.
I even got jokes from moderators. Sheesh!

Fine! Fine! Fine!! I'll answer the question:

Any body have any first-hand knowledge of this? Do you know anyone who does it and claims to have benefited from it without damaging their eyes?

"No."

There. It's done. You have your answer. We can lock this thread now.

Captain Amazing
08-09-2011, 03:49 PM
I got a response from Peter Seluin (the director/producer) to my second question, and he gave me permission to post it here.

I asked, "Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion about what Mason Dwinell did and the whole "sungazing" movement?"

He responded:

I'll assume you saw the film. If not, I'd recommend you check it out.


As far as my opinion on Mason and the sungazing movement: I feel that Mason's quest was a sincere and authentic effort to uncover some truth(s) and, seen in that light, is commendable and noteworthy; as far as the sungazing movement, I feel that it's as valid an approach to spirituality and well being as any other spiritual or religious practice. That said, I do not sungaze.


Hope this answers the question for you.


Best,
Peter

Mangetout
08-09-2011, 05:02 PM
This WAS originally posted in GQ. except it turns out you wanted it to be an opinion poll + hence my suggestion that it would be better suited to IMHO.

Then it turned into a farcical circus, completely off topic
The subject matter itself is farcical. Your expectations weren't very realistic. Many of the posts people responded with were quite on topic - they just weren't what you wanted to hear.

Mangetout
08-09-2011, 05:07 PM
This is the original question. As you can plainly see I asked if anyone had any first hand knowledge or knew anyone that had practiced it. I wanted answers from objective observers, not people from a website with obvious biases.
I can't figure out why this question was so easily misunderstood.
I even got jokes from moderators. Sheesh!

What makes you imagine that people who do any particular thing are also going to be objective about it?

Czarcasm
08-09-2011, 05:49 PM
I got a response from Peter Seluin (the director/producer) to my second question, and he gave me permission to post it here.

I asked, "Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion about what Mason Dwinell did and the whole "sungazing" movement?"

He responded:I'll assume you saw the film. If not, I'd recommend you check it out.


As far as my opinion on Mason and the sungazing movement: I feel that Mason's quest was a sincere and authentic effort to uncover some truth(s) and, seen in that light, is commendable and noteworthy; as far as the sungazing movement, I feel that it's as valid an approach to spirituality and well being as any other spiritual or religious practice. That said, I do not sungaze.


Hope this answers the question for you.


Best,
Peter

Now that's a diplomatic answer.

Sudden Kestrel
08-09-2011, 07:21 PM
This is the original question. As you can plainly see I asked if anyone had any first hand knowledge or knew anyone that had practiced it. I wanted answers from objective observers, not people from a website with obvious biases.
I can't figure out why this question was so easily misunderstood.
I even got jokes from moderators. Sheesh!

So, just curious. Did you ever ask the question on a message board where you were likely to find sungazing practitioners? If you have, I'd be interested in hearing what you learned.

Czarcasm
08-09-2011, 07:28 PM
This is the original question. As you can plainly see I asked if anyone had any first hand knowledge or knew anyone that had practiced it. I wanted answers from objective observers, not people from a website with obvious biases.
I can't figure out why this question was so easily misunderstood.
I even got jokes from moderators. Sheesh!Our "bias" is toward reality. You seem to think that there are two equal sides to this story, and there just isn't. The objective view from anyone with more than a 4th grade education is that this is pure silliness. It's like responding to the statement "Drinking and driving is dangerous!" by looking for objective viewpoints from people who think it's beneficial to drink and drive.

OneMissedPost
08-09-2011, 07:52 PM
Our "bias" is toward reality. You seem to think that there are two equal sides to this story, and there just isn't. The objective view from anyone with more than a 4th grade education is that this is pure silliness. It's like responding to the statement "Drinking and driving is dangerous!" by looking for objective viewpoints from people who think it's beneficial to drink and drive.

I doubt OP will find anyone who practices sun-gazing. Although, I wouldn't be against the OP researching the topic because I would be curious to find out who exactly practices sun-gazing.

Gary Robson
08-10-2011, 01:00 AM
I doubt OP will find anyone who practices sun-gazing.He might. There are plenty of ways for blind people to use computers.

topaz
08-10-2011, 06:22 AM
I got a response from Peter Seluin (the director/producer) to my second question, and he gave me permission to post it here.

I asked, "Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion about what Mason Dwinell did and the whole "sungazing" movement?"

He responded:

Thank you, Captain Amazing. This is the only attempt I have witnessed to provide any info directly related to the question.
Kudos.
I checked with the Documentary Channel and this will air again on 8/18 at noon eastern for anyone interested in seeing it.
Then, perhaps, you can form your own opinions with some actual facts as presented in the film.

topaz
08-10-2011, 06:27 AM
He might. There are plenty of ways for blind people to use computers.

This proves my point.
When you, a moderator insults me, it is (t)witty and clever.
When I do it, I am threatened with banishment. :(

Mangetout
08-10-2011, 06:37 AM
Which part of the statement you quoted insults you, and how? Are you blind? Did it happen because you looked at the sun?

Also, who threatened to ban you? I can't see that anywhere...

Crazyhorse
08-10-2011, 06:45 AM
I checked with the Documentary Channel and this will air again on 8/18 at noon eastern for anyone interested in seeing it.

Or if not seeing it, at least listening to it.

Czarcasm
08-10-2011, 07:19 AM
This proves my point.
When you, a moderator insults me, it is (t)witty and clever.
When I do it, I am threatened with banishment. :(Not unless you identify yourself with those who would do something so foolhardy and misguided as to stare directly at the sun for an extended period of time.
Do you?

topaz
08-10-2011, 07:35 AM
Which part of the statement you quoted insults you, and how? Are you blind? Did it happen because you looked at the sun?

Also, who threatened to ban you? I can't see that anywhere...

If you cannot "see" the condescending tone of his post, then perhaps, you should have your "vision" checked.
Implying that Sungazers are automatically blinded by the practice is entirely inaccurate.

I was threatened with banishment by private message.

Boyo Jim
08-10-2011, 07:44 AM
Thank you, Captain Amazing. This is the only attempt I have witnessed to provide any info directly related to the question. ...

Have you been sungazing and gone blind? I've posted comments from the film director about the outcome of the film subject's activities. What am eye, chopped liver?

Mangetout
08-10-2011, 08:12 AM
If you cannot "see" the condescending tone of his post, then perhaps, you should have your "vision" checked. It's not condescending to you - it's not even talking about you (unless indirectly perhaps, if you're a sungazer yourself, but that's not established, is it?). Anyway, it's quite funny. What's your real problem?

Implying that Sungazers are automatically blinded by the practice is entirely inaccurate. You seem to know a lot about the subject already. Why are you asking the SDMB about it?

I was threatened with banishment by private message.Fair enough then.

Turek
08-10-2011, 08:30 AM
If you cannot "see" the condescending tone of his post, then perhaps, you should have your "vision" checked.
Implying that Sungazers are automatically blinded by the practice is entirely inaccurate.

The belief by you or anyone else that you can stare at the sun and not go blind is bullshit.

Mangetout
08-10-2011, 08:35 AM
The belief by you or anyone else that you can stare at the sun and not go blind is bullshit.

Well, unless 'sungazers' really means 'people that look at sunsets, occasionally' - but another name for that set of people is 'everyone'

Smeghead
08-10-2011, 09:31 AM
Then, perhaps, you can form your own opinions with some actual facts as presented in the film.

Tell me, please, what facts are presented in the documentary that will convince me that there is something to this. Here are the facts that I am aware of: there are some people who think that sungazing is a valid practice, and claim that they have used it successfully. These people appear to be sincere in their beliefs. Is there anything else I've missed?

Gary Robson
08-10-2011, 09:40 AM
This proves my point. It proves nothing.
When you, a moderator insults me, it is (t)witty and clever. (1) I did not insult you - I merely referred to the undisputed fact that gazing directly at the sun damages eyesight. Even the subject of the documentary you cited repeatedly experienced this, and he's an "expert."
(2) And, by the way, that post does not say "Moderating" anywhere in it. I was speaking as just a member of the boards, helping to fight ignorance.
(3) Your "(t)witty" comment is pretty close to the line, though.
When I do it, I am threatened with banishment. :(I did not threaten you with banishment.

Implying that Sungazers are automatically blinded by the practice is entirely inaccurate. I did not imply that sungazers are automatically blinded by the practice. I implied that gazing directly at the sun damages eyesight, and doing it enough will cause blindness. This is medical fact.

I was threatened with banishment by private message.To the best of my knowledge, I have never sent you a private message on any topic whatsoever. All communication between the two of us has taken place in this thread, where it is clear to all readers that I have not threatened to ban you.

Left Hand of Dorkness
08-10-2011, 09:55 AM
Then, perhaps, you can form your own opinions with some actual facts as presented in the film.
topaz, I've seen people defend nutty ideas with this tactic many times, and it's baffling. If there are persuasive facts in the film, then it is the facts that are persuasive, not the format in which they're presented: just tell us the facts yourself.

If, however, it's the film itself that's persuasive, not the facts contained therein, that suggests that the film is using dishonest propaganda techniques to persuade the viewer in spite of the facts. If that's the case, why would I possibly want to watch the film and risk being persuaded of something that's not factually persuasive?

Marley23
08-10-2011, 10:34 AM
I was threatened with banishment by private message.
I didn't threaten to ban you by private message, and I'm pretty sure no one else on the staff has been in touch with you. I did say upthread that if you continued to ignore moderator instructions and hijacked your own discussion by complaining, you might not last long here.

It's past time that I closed this thread, so I'm doing that now. If anyone wants me to reopen it, send me a private message and I'll consider it.