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.
Yes, quite the trophy case of awards it’s racked up.
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.
There is an article about the director in his local paper here:
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:
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.
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.
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.
This practice simply cannot work. Asking for people with experience is like asking for people with working perpetual motion machines.
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.
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.
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, which includes this:
How about that? Is that “first-hand” enough?
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.
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.
[moderating]
Since this has moved well beyond GQ territory, I have moved the thread to Great Debates.
[/moderating]
[mod note]
Personal insults are not allowed outside the Pit.
[/mod note]
I honestly cannot think of one single member of the SDMB that I would consider dumb enough to believe in nonsense of this caliber.
Do they consider the moonlight to be “dessert”?
And I honestly never thought of you as being that charitable. I’ve seen dumber things believed by “popular” posters on here.