Talk:Aura (paranormal)

This talk article was duplicated from aura.

I just removed some of the article because the language it used was POV from the New Age perspective (i.e, it assumed that auras were real). Feel free to put it back if you can cite a source and reword it to be NPOV. --218.101.24.11 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed from the article

NPOV

This article lacks a NPOV, not from the ESP/New Age view but from the skeptic view. First of all, as a definition it should be stated what the New Age followers believe aura is. Secondly, there should be the scientific proof of the electromagnetic field generated around the body. Any thought about connecting those, that is Aura = electromagnetic field, should be justified. Since when do New Age believers think that auras = EM fields of the body? That removes the paranormal trait of the word "aura" for them if they do. Also PROOF should be given about this "technique" that enables us to see auras. This is contradictory however since higher frequency radiation that is closer to the purple color while any electromagnetic phenomenon of a human's body would be at very low frequency, which means if indeed there is a technique to see an electromagnetic field of the body, that would seem reddish.

In general, the NPOV would be served by the Scientific POV.

The idea's of auras are not a newe age thing. Many cultures of the past have believed in it, or have used it. The chinese burial ritual norm is wearing white, not black like in the western culture. A fact that many people, who have seen auras or as some would say they have, is that when a person is dying there aura goes very white. Some and many would argue that the two are connected. This is not the only one. YOu bastard phoebus, I wrote this, Ian

Or the people seeing the auras "going white" are associating white with death, as that is what has been accepted culturally and so subconciously. People turn white when they die, the "light" is white, heaven is usually depicted as whiteish, the life-giving light from the sun is white, and so forth. Look at me, I can think critically! -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of a person's electromagnetic field would be in the infrared part of the spectrum. There are night vision goggles and so forth that can image this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I happen to be something of an expert in Night Vision goggles (NVG's) and InfraRed (IR) imaging. Having worked on very careful computer simulation of such devices for flight simulation and such. Night Vision goggles see into the 'near' infrared - but people don't really look much different in near-IR than they do in normal vision - there is no 'Aura'. NVG's boost the brightness of everything pretty much uniformly (although they don't make blue and green things quite as bright as you might expect with normal vision). Some Infrared cameras see into the mid-range infrared - others into the far-infrared. Far-IR is getting close to so-called 'millimeter-wave radar' - so it behaves a bit like radar and people DO look a bit odd - the most noticable thing is that they look rather naked because their clothes don't efficiently block far-IR signals. The most commonly used IR cameras (and what I think you are talking about) are the ones that work in the mid-range IR. Cameras that are sensitive to mid-range IR are essentially seeing heat emission - hot things being bright and cold things dark. In mid-range IR, humans do look rather brighter than other objects simply because they tend to be warmer. But warm-blooded animals, the engine of a car (if it has been running recently) or the roof of a poorly insulated house in winter - would also look brighter than you'd expect. There is nothing 'paranormal' about this - it's simple physics. It is possible under some circumstances to see a 'glow' around hot objects like people in some infrared cameras - and this is because the camera itself may be being partially overloaded by the brightness of a small part of the image when the majority of the image is cool/dark. Again, this is a well-understood effect - there is nothing paranormal about it. Some people have claimed that these 'glows' are the same thing as auras - but since anything warm shows up like this (even inanimate objects), it's pretty indefensible. Furthermore, on a hot day when the ambient temperature is up over body temperature, the fact that people can sweat and keep their body temperature down BELOW ambient means that people may under those circumstances be cooler (darker) than everything else in the image - and there is no 'aura' anymore...which further proves that any idea of auras being visible in the IR is nonsense. SteveBaker (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Aura explanation

- - The aura means nothing more than the living being's electromagnetic field. It's presence has been proven long ago. The only problem is: there is no technology to measure it. - - Everything has an aura, even objects, since a material is both of nature: atomic and electromagnetic. Like photons. - - People, who can see auras, describe it as a mixture of colors. -

1. The existance of Aura in this sense has not been proved

2. Any electromagnetic field that the body is caperble of producing is detecterble using are current technology

3.the claim that everything has Aura is not backed by evidence. Also can the person claiming explain neutrons?

4.Some people who cliam to see Auras describe them as only being one colourGeni 10:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken, isn't aura also the latin word for air?

More occult information welcome?

I understand the reasoning for taking out the above text, and agree with it. I think the criticism of James Randi should also be taken out of this page. If needed it could be added to a page on Randi, if one exists. My question, though, is this. I am one of those people that can see auras. I would like to add to the article some effects that I see which are also supported by other sources, such as multiple aura colors, auras around objects near a person but not in physical contact with them and various aura interconnections and after-image effects. It should be made clear that there is no scientific foundation for these observations, but it should be reported nonetheless. Also, in researching auras for my own reasons, I have run across information that may be helpful to others, such as aura color attributions, methods for learning to view auras, and their possible connection to what occultists term the "etheric body". However, I am new to wikipedia and don't know the conventions here. --Godshatter 08:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As someone with no official standing or connection with Wikipedia policy-making, I'm going to put in my two cents. I don't think you should describe your own experiences here—that's the ultimate "POV" material. If you want to share on the Web what you have to say about auras, you could make your own Web site. Then I think an "external link" with an NPOV title such as "Discussion of auras by a person who claims to see them" would be appropriate for Wikipedia. Incidentally, I also think you should claim Randi's prize. :-) —JerryFriedman 20:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. I will look for some references to the phenomena I've seen in the books I have, and add it if I can cite a source for it. I also think the wording about Randi's prize needs to be reworked a bit. If people can see auras around inanimate objects (as I can at times), then the test proposed in the article may not work. Also, the tone is more POV than NPOV. I would love to make a million-plus by winning the prize, but I'd hate to lose it on a test that made too many invalid assumptions. --Godshatter 21:18, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Synesthesia

Is there any reason I shouldn't move the sentences about Liszt's, Beethoven's, and Schubert's synesthesia to synesthesia? —JerryFriedman 23:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

_____________________

The information is useful in both places (aura and synesthesia). The reference to musicians seeing colors while hearing music needs to remain in the aura section because it is one of the most common ways that non-psychic professionals will typically go on record as saying they are seeing colors. These colors appear in the form of auras, and they also typically accompany other sensory stimuli, so this reference indeed belongs both in the aura section and in the synesthesia section. —Cynthia_Sue_Larson 08:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do the colors really appear in the form of auras? Mine don't—they appear in my "mind's eye" like things that I imagine, not around physical objects the way auras are described. But of course other synesthetes' experiences might be different from mine. If you have a reference to people who said they saw auras somehow (around the instruments?) instead of just saying that a certain note or timbre has a certain color, putting that in the article would make sense to me. Otherwise, I think the connection between synesthesia and auras needs to be explained.

(to answer the above)Seeing colors in the minds eye, would represent absorbed energy into oneself, whereas a person actually seeing colors, is seeing things which are outside of them. A person able to see inner colors, is in touch with themself. A person able to see the energy pattern of the world around them, is attuned to their environment(higher stage of enmeshment, if one imagines a wire mesh, as the energy grid).

One of the links in the article, Auras in the "Skeptic's dictionary", ends with a speculation that at least some people who see auras may actually be experiencing synesthesia, seeing their knowledge about a person or object in another form. Is that the connection? —JerryFriedman 18:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Auras are frequently seen in the mind's eye, and are often seen in a variety of different ways through what is known as high sense perception. High sense perception is the term coined by Dr. Shafica Karagula, and mentioned in Karagula's book "Breakthrough to Creativity." It describes the way information is often perceived by some sensitive people, including medical intuitives. Just as there are many ways that everyone sees auras, there also appear to be a number of different ways that people experience synesthesia, including some people seeing colors at the same time as they are experiencing a different sense. The connection between auras and synesthesia is thus based on the way that additional information is experienced by certain people. —Cynthia_Sue_Larson 08:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I tried to incorporate this information in a logical order and an NPOV way. I leave it to you to correct anything I misunderstood (if I did, no offense, I was just editing boldly), and to decide whether to add Breakthrough to Creativity to the references section. I really think, though, that this article needs only one example of synesthesia, if that. —JerryFriedman 17:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll also leave it to you, or to anyone who knows, to correct the spelling of "dycanide" or "dicynanin". The y's are in different places. —JerryFriedman 17:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing such a beautiful job with your recent edits to the aura and synesthesia pages. They are both quite improved! I've just checked the spelling for "dicyanin" and will see the spelling is checked. —Cynthia_Sue_Larson 06:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad it worked out to be useful. —JerryFriedman 01:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of persons reported to be able to see auras

Just for references.--Jondel 02:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Edgar Cayce
• Joseph Ostrom added by Lottie 12:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Older origins of aura beliefs?

I wonder if anyone knows anything about origins of the aura belief. Most New Age beliefs I'm familiar with go back to concepts from old mythologies, philosophies or belief systems. But I haven't found anything relating to "aura". Can anyone help me out on this? AdamDobay 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Kosha (Yoga)

Aura is the visible part of Kosha of yoga anatomy.

Auras as audio frequencies stupidity remove

I have removed the following paragraph from the article, because, frankly, it feels like who wrote it had no idea what they are talking about. If the frequency of a dark blue aura is 200 Hz, it would be a sound (220Hz is A in the second octave), not a colour invisible to the naked eye. These are not even high frequencies, as humans can perceive sound waves between about 20Hz and 20000Hz. See Audio Frequency for more. AdamDobay 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the strongest evidence that Auras exist comes from Dr. Valerie Hunt who correlated high frequency sounds with the observations of several aura readers. After doing a fourier frequncy analysis here are her results:

Aura Colour	Frequency Hz
Dark Blue	200
Green	300
Yellow	400
Red	500
Orange	600
Light Blue	700
Violet	800
Cream, White	1000
Golden	1400

• Arrr, sound and electromagnetic waves are completely seperate. I don't know what the devil you're talking about. I support keeping this crap out, though, since it lacks verifiability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the decimal point was in the wrong place, like maybe if it was converted from different units of measure? --Classic8uranus 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We have scientific instruments that can measure both acoustic and electromagnetic frequencies from DC to gigahertz. If an 'aura' was either audio or electromagnetic, we'd be able to measure it - and we can't. The question here is not "Is that table correct?" it is: "What instrument was used to measure those numbers?" If such an instrument exists, Why is it not mentioned? How does it work? What is it made of? Knowing the answer to those questions would answer either (a) this is utterly bogus or (b) place the whole business of aura's firmly into the domain of hard science. If (as generally claimed) auras are detectable to sensitive humans ONLY - then this table should not exist because humans cannot (unaided) attach numbers like this to sensory phenomena. If in fact there is an auraometer out there somewhere then its operation needs to be explained in great detail here. SteveBaker (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Differing Beliefs

As someone who has constant experience with seeing visual energy. Not sure exactly how to add information that would be considered factual, so im presenting this section as a general talk area for people who have actual personal experience with this phenomenon to categorize the current beliefs. The encyclopedic utility of this section would be mostly stimulative, thus being in the talk section; as in, to stimulate those who want to list facts about books with contrasting point of views on what an aura is and to help categorize the factual information presented in various books. So to begin the talk, ill give personal experience as a framework for such categorization. The somewhat narcisstic view that auras come off of people, or that people have auras, noted in the article page, from my personal experience, is inaccurate. To say that someone 'has' an aura, like the statement made on the article page that a religous person 'has' a purple aura, is simplistic. Although it is accurate to say that it is a belief of a more simplistic(in relation to auras) belief system, and should be noted as such. Because a persons aura, the energy around them, is the type of energy going into their body at any given time, at any moment an individual will have several colors going into them which will change instantaneously as their environment around them changes. In the beginning of seeing the energy field an individual will see the sterotypical auralike idea thrown around in common parlance. Later this ability turns into a shifting field of colored lines, as various energy transfers through the grid around. I'm not into reading books about auras, as most likely, I know more about the subject matter than the majority who has written. So anyone who can add somefactsto the presentation of auras as a new age belief. By summarizing books. Go for it. Anyone else with personal experience, or the beginnings of the contrasting views presented in books section, please continue. Continuing with categorizing the different perspectives; I think it would be useful to categorize beliefs in auras as either narcisstic(or simplistic), progressive, or energetic. Carlos castanedas egg being the more energetic perspective.(quotes welcome) The definitive lines of energy field, and aura cross over quite a bit. The point of this talk section, i think, is that the only issue here isn't the scienctific proof or non proof of auras, and the belief in them. But also the differing beliefs about them, which are vaguely listed in the second sentence of the article. "This emanation is visualized as an outline of cascading color and may be held to represent soul vibrations, chakric emergence, or a reflection of surrounding energy fields." These topics should have separate sections, with supporting book quotes, etc. As i noted earlier, soul vibrations is the simplisitic view, thus the use of the vague word soul with another vague word vibrations.(vague in that usage at least). These simplistic views tend to add a somewhat quasi scientific section to their simple aura outline, such as auras lining up to frequencies of light, or some currently measurable stimuli. The progressive view could be summarized as saying that auras are somehow special, and having them in some colors means you are progressing in some way, in some belief system. The specificity of progression would differ in different belief systems. Third perspective being the energetic perspective, being that every life reflects energy from the surrounding area constantly, with their aura. And these energies are in fact, translatable to the way we feel. With the intensity of seeing for example, red, and the way in which it is seen, directly applicable to the amount of heat a person is feeling inside. Ah, im too lazy now, but i will come back and add castanade quotes later. As well as flesh out the simplistic section.

If you can reliably and "constantly" see this - then why don't you apply to win the $1,000,000 paranormal challenge? I'm really interested to know. If I had this ability, I'd certainly be out there collecting the money! It should be really simple for you to do this. Is it that you don't need a million dollars - or that you don't wish the world to know (well, you kinda blew that by telling us)? Perhaps you didn't know that this prize was out there? I can't understand why someone who is convinced that they have this extraordinary ability isn't willing to do that. Please tell us why - I really want to know. SteveBaker (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[I'm a different writer by the way!] Many spiritual people lack materialism. Sadly it's also the case that Randi is so practiced that he often debunks things I have direct experiential knowledge of. I'll give _him_ a million dollars if he can worm his way round that to _my_ satisfaction though...do you think he'll take it up, or just not bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.93.105 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been able to see visual energy all my life also. Most people can-it's called sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job so far

A sincere thank you to all who have contributed to this article. I find it to be an interesting subject.

That being said, I would like to note my surprize in seeing such a short article paired with such a long discussion page. Geez people, quit talking so much and dish out some information instead.

Also in case you didn't know, and I'm actually trying to be helpful here, the proper way to cite references is to use reference tags. This involves placing a cited source after the statement it pertains to, inside of two <ref> tags. Then under the References section you place a single (self closing) tag <references />.

Example:

This machine doohicky can purportedly photograph Auras.<ref>Super cool book</ref><ref>Neato website</ref>

References

<references />

Thank you for the help. I've added some info from a couple of books I have, and have added footnotes and a "Notes" section at the bottom of the page for them. Godshatter 07:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal For External Link

Would like to propose the following for an external link - Yogi Philosophy - The Human Aura Smithville 00:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

poi

The image of a person using glow-in-the-dark poi sticks isn't an actual artists interpretation of an aura, and isn't 100% applicable to this page. 66.41.66.213 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a very beautiful image, but has nothing to do with this subject, so it's gone. A kirlian photography image would be more appropriate, even though it too would have nothing to do with auras, but they are at least claimed to be images of them. -- Fyslee 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

James Randi specific test removed

The test given conflicts with the writings of Robert Bruce, so would not be valid as a test for the validity of auras. Godshatter 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen of Randi's proposed tests, and that's not a lot, they rarely would work according to most theory on the relevant subject... Certainly explains why no genuine people actually have a go at winning the cash, as they know the test won't actually realistically test their ability. I'd like to find out more.

Anyway, I think if Randi's test is going to be included it should be with a quote or some such saying why someone-with-knowledge thinks it's rubbish. Lottie 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding a relevant link for this, I think we're talking about Randi's million dollar challenge in this section of discussion. According to this million dollar challenge section (in Wikipedia), I think I need to disagree a bit with Lottie. It seems like any psychic who could consistently demonstrate their abilities could win the money. On the other hand, the key word seems to be "test" - if there isn't a test to see whether people can detect auras, then it's going to be impossible to get the money. Lisatwo 05:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, this is an embarrassment. "Someone with knowledge" who "thinks it's rubbish"? There is no such thing as "knowledge" of auras, because there is no such thing as auras, as anyone with actual "knowledge" of the world we live in knows very well. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a trashy new-age paperback. Is there a way to restrict these articles to empirical fact, rather than a grab-bag of woo-woo nonsense? MrBronson 13:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out this small clip I found on YouTube of another James Randi test done on an Aura reader, if it helps contribute to the betterment of this artical. [1] JayPetey 03:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The deal with Randi's challenge is that you have to consider all the ways the world could be and the outcomes that would result if that way were true:

1. If there were people who could reliably detect aura's - then surely at least one of them would want to earn $1,000,000 and prove to the world that this was true. Someone would have taken the test, succeeded, walked away with the money and gone on to overturn science and destroy scepticism and earn fame and fortune. This clearly hasn't happened.
2. If some people BELIEVED they could reliably detect aura's - but could not - then we'd see people (as in the YouTube clip above) coming forward for testing - and failing. However, we know there are crazy people in the world - so this doesn't tell us much other than that such people exist.
3. If there were people who could sometimes detect aura's (significantly better than just chance guessing - but not perfectly) - then it might be tough for them to come up with a solid scientific test that could be agreed with Randi to prove this. A few people have come forward - but all (so far) have failed to show any ability whatever in the face of preliminary testing...but if their skill is patchy - maybe that's expected.
4. If nobody believed that they could do this then everyone who claims to be able to do it would knowingly be a charlatan. If this were the case then it would be surprising if many of them would be willing to undergo scientific testing. It seems that very few people who claim this ability are willing to try for the $1,000,000 prize - so this is likely to be the case for most of the people who claim the ability.

It seems the only things that fit the facts (given the existance the Randi test) are EITHER (a) A very unreliable ability in a few individuals that's too close to chance to be easily testable or (b) Nobody can do this - but some people believe that they can while most are charlatans. Deciding between these two possibilities is difficult without tedious statistical trials (which are VERY easily screwed up by poor scientific methods). So we are left with the present situation where a few people believe they can do this (reliably enough to convince themselves) - but not reliably enough to prove it to others. Mainstream science cannot accept that because it violates every known principle of the way the universe works - and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Lack of serious statistical evidence means that the theory becomes a victim of Occam's razor.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This external link - not sure on it (Resolved)

Aura Colours

I'm not sure if this is the best link - it's not very well spelled, I'm not sure it would count as a reputable source? Lottie 10:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, not good. Not a reliable source, and it's ad-laden (hello popups). It's gone. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

General Human Perception section

Just noting that I deleted it [2].

1. We're not a how-to guide (WP:NOT)
2. Those are white blood cells, not magical dots. See Blue_field_entoptic_phenomenon
3. WP:RS, WP:FRINGE

-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a little bit of a response, out of curiosity. I see these "magical" little white dots, when I look at the sky and when it's dark. They are as described by the page you mentioned as "Scheerer's phenomenon is distinguished by the appearance of multiple, identical-looking bright dots that follow each other rapidly along the same path." The same path part is the bit I have difficulty with - I see so many of these silvery-glowing dots that I don't think I could ever confirm that they were following each other, or on the same path. They're mostly just a mess...

Perhaps the author isn't implying that they're magical, just that they use the same "type" of focus that viewing auras requires?

Either way, I agree with the deletion because I thought that was a silly section - didn't know there was a policy on it though. Lottie 13:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the section did state "it is assumed that they are a form of information-energy that the universe uses to communicate and replenish itself.", so yeah. I just used WP:RS and WP:FRINGE as one normally takes medical literature to be more reliable than a single, fringe book.

As for what you're seeing, I'm not en expert. They could very well be white blood cells; the article describes them as moving along "squiggly lines", and if you're seeing more than one at once it could get very confusing as to where they are. And I'm not sure how likely it is that most of them would follow the same path, considering the sheer number of capillaries in the retina. They're more visible when looking at blue light, but I've also seen the same thing when not. Though, if you're seeing them when it's completely dark you're likely seeing something different (Aura (symptom) ?) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"it is assumed that they are a form of information-energy that the universe uses to communicate and replenish itself." Eek! I must have skimmed over that, I don't think that's true at all... The dots I see do move in sqiggly lines, though it doesn't sound like it's Aura (symptom). Maybe it is the white blood cells. Hmmmm. They do look different in the dark, mostly because there's a lot more of them. How bizarre, I am clearly a freak of nature! (hehehe...) Well, thanks for your input, it's appreciated. :) Lottie 10:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of health.....

To me, just for the sake of preventing getting the migraine, a aura protection need to be performed...hoh...hoh.... :-)

"Ancient shamanic and modern New Age metaphysics identify the aura as electromagnetic fields."

I reckon ancient shamans must have had a lot to say about electromagnetic fields? --Aaron Walden 05:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a question...

I would like to ask all those skeptics of aura's, how can you explain the way other peoples moods can affect ones own - Say, for example, you walk into a room and someone's in a really bad mood. As soon as you step in the room, you can feel in the atmosphere that something's wrong. I find it hard to believe anybody who says they haven't experienced this, or a similar phenomena, and would like to hear an alternative explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.140.189 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh - that's easy! Humans are very perceptive of facial expression and body language - although often not at a conscious level. Next time you're in a meeting with a dozen or so people sitting around a conference table - take a look at how everyone has their arms positioned compared to the person who is speaking. You'll notice that everyone who basically agrees with the speaker will have their arms folded in a similar way - and those who don't, have them positioned differently. Nobody (well, hardly anyone) knows that they are doing this - it happens at a level of the mind below conscious thought. There is no reason not to believe that the feeling you get (at the conscious level) of 'bad vibes' when you step into a room doesn't merely come from a subconscious measurement of posture, facial expression and other really subtle factors. There is no need to invent some concept that lies completely outside of all known science in order to explain such things. See Paralanguage. SteveBaker (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence does in fact need some work

The definition is lifted straight from a parapsychology dictionary. Not exactly NPOV. I saw another definition from a new age crystal worshipping (whatever) site that described it more of a metaphysical concept. Not suggesting one is better than the other but the opening lead could use some fine tuning. Obviously there is no scientific evidence auras exist, in view of this what would you call it? A concept? It's not a theory of course...And I have no interest in the subject so I won't be arguing any of this and I'm not Wiki savvy enough to suggest how it could be improved. Not sure how I ended up on this page actually. Maybe my aura made me read it....Angry Christian (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure - the lead sentence considered by itself isn't balanced - but the very next sentence has that covered. The first sentence defines what an aura is supposed to be by 'believers' - the second one says what science considers to be the case. Overall, I'm not too unhappy about it (and I'm definitely on the 'skeptic' side of the fence). SteveBaker (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Auras != Science (moved from top)

Auras are not a scientific phenomenon, so there's no use in trying to use rational skepticism to analyze the experience. Subjective experiences cannot be proved, disproved, or evaluated by scientific means in any way. There is no necessary connection between subjective experience and objective reality, as pointed out by Kant in the Prolegammena. Lastly, auras are decidedly NOT a "New Age" phenomenon, as descriptions of aura fields goes back for thousands of years. See prana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.193.9 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo device

I seen on TV a device that can take photo of aura? Does it exist? What is this? How does it work? Is it just a normal photo with Photoshop effect added? -- Frap (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's probably Kirlian photography. It's real, but it doesn't "work". It produces images via a corona discharge effect. There's no evidence that people who claim they see auras see this type of thing, and in fact many plain inanimate objects also produce interesting images with this setup. All it really does is makes pretty pictures. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Aura is Pseudoscience??

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more gibberish than pseudoscience. Without trying to remember my university login for ebscohost, I've got [3], [4], [5] from Google Scholar. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get any of these. CSICOP isn't a reliable (unbiased science) source, and the other two didn't resolve to either a source or a characterization of the aura with decisive data. Can you help? Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

At risk of repeating myself 'From your recent post on Category talk:Pseudoscience, pseudoscience is "assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not." Many AIDS denialists aura advocates make "assertions about [AIDS that auras] claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not.". So yes, it fits the category. Please stop with your pointy disruption.' (quoting from AIDS Denialism)Verbal chat 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All 3 articles associate auras with psuedoscience. If you are unable to read the American Association of Physics Teachers one, I'm sorry, but that's not my fault. Two other sources:

• HOW PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS GETAWAY WITH IT. By: Morain, Lloyd. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, Apr2008, Vol. 65 Issue 2, p141-150, 10p; (AN 32898665)
• Alternative therapies. By: Goldemberg, Robert L., DCI, 10964819, Oct97, Vol. 161, Issue 4

Together that is > 0 sources, and combined with the argument above, I don't see removing the category as being warranted. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

An explanation that could be scientifically tested

All humans and animals have a social space around the body and they pay naturally attention to the space right beside their body. For a lively person with wide attentive movements this space can be very large, tens of centimeters, but for a negligient non-sporty and non-social person the space around the body which they pay attention to can be very small, less than a centimeter. This instinctual attention around the body is called an aura. Since all ways of living are not equally good for health, not equally lively, you can see from the aura how likely the other person is to run into big difficulties and harmful accidents in one's life: where there is no attention in one's life one cannot protect oneself, not even against death. The body is the way we live, via it we do whatever we do and in its gestures we express what we feel about life. So in the state of the body, of our attention in connection with the body we can see how alive and strong each person is.InsectIntelligence (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article tlak pages are for contributing to the article, not discussing the article's subject. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)