From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This needs the presentation of a dissenting view, viz. that "chromotherapy" is outside the realm of mainstream medicine. In point of fact, it should be presented objectively as something people do, but not as just the details involved in "chromotherapy."

-- 20:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I don't fully understand what you mean by that. We do want this to stay encyclopedic. Maybe you can give an example of what you would add?
Straal 21:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Blue light to the back of the kness[edit]

More recent reaserch has found not effect:

unfotunetly while pubmed has indexed the papaer the abstract is not online

Hi just thought I would refer you to a couple of other sites that might have what you require or be able to point you in the correct direction. For me they have been very helpful. Just as an example of how colour can effect you on different levels which can then manifest physically imagine yourself surrounded by a colour you love and only that colour. Take note of how that makes you feel mentally and emotionally and how this will bring about different states within yourself eventually coming down top the physical. If you are still having trouble seeijng how this can effect you now picture or surround yourself with a clour that you hate, I am sure you can feel the difference.

[1] or Aura-Soma a version of colour therapy that also combines crystal energies, essential oils and herbal essences with the colour

[2] a registered charity for advancing the benfits of colour

you also do searches on the net and maybe on this site for goethe Goetheand rudolf steinerRudolf_Steiner and theo gimbel [3]that will give you further references and avenues to pursue and investigate further

--Whakanuia 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations plz?[edit]

I am a little disturbed that I seem to have put in this article's very first citation. Could we get some sources in here?--TurabianNights 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Chromotherapy and pseudoscience[edit]

This section seems largely unnecessary and prescriptive. Unfortunately I don't have access to the reference cited, but if one scientist claims that "chromotherapists ignore every case where the therapy doesn't work" this can only be described as a criticism, and definitely not stated as a fact, since this will never be verifiable. I'd love to know exactly which way the person who placed the NPOV tag at the top of this article was thinking it swung too far, because currently I'm thinking it's too critical - all the descriptions of the process are written in a way which clearly states this is just how practitioners regard it to work, as it should be, and yet the criticisms of one scientist are glorified as unquestionable facts. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on this section (which swung too far one way as noted above) and removed some stuff from the colours section which was too prescriptive the other way, and also added a note about criticism to the lede. I don't know what the person who added the NPOV tag was thinking, but it seems to read a bit more neutrally now. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The reference link 'Smallpox: Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?' is irrelevant to this article and needs to be removed. Siddhi.powers (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Labelled Pseudoscientific[edit]

It is not "labelled" pseudoscientific. It is pseudoscientific.

To suggest that it is merely "labelled" by critics as such, is really a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jasper Fforde Novel Shades of Grey[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

John Ott[edit]

Dr. John Ott has found that lighting, which more closely simulates natural sunlight, has a positive effect on health, behavior and performance while typical artificial fluorescent light sources cause visual discomfort and lowered performance.


  • Ott, John Nash, "School Lighting and Hyperactivity," Journal for Biosocial Research, Summer 1980, p. 6-7.
  • Ott, John Nash, "Influence of Fluorescent Lights on Hyperactivity and Learning Disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, August-September 1976, p. 417-422.
  • Ott, John Nash, et al., "Light Radiation and Academic Achievement: Second Year Data," Academic Therapy, Summer 1976, pp. 397-407.
  • Ott, John Nash, "Color and Light: Their Effects on Plants, Animals and People," Journal of Biosocial Research 7, part 1, 1985

Is this fringe science or has it been confirmed by others? GreenUniverse (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to find any references to his work, but I question the relevance to this article as Dr. Ott's work is in relation to the full spectrum of light not individual colors. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence.[edit]

This sentence "It is said that a therapist trained in chromotherapy can use light in the form of color to balance "energy" wherever a person's body be lacking, whether on physical, emotional, spiritual, or mental levels." is confusing. I infer that it means specific areas of the body can be treated for their "deficiency" but this could definitely be phrased in a clearer manner. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia project for Psych class[edit]


My group and I have an assignment for our class at the University of Florida. It requires us to edit wikipedia. We were thinking about adding some information to this page as well as updating the reference section. We were thinking about adding information about the Luscher test for personality, the effect of the color of food on the taste, and hopefully some background on chromotherapy itself.


DVD2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVD2013 (talkcontribs) 23:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Avicenna misquoted[edit]

The quote attributed to Avicenna does not occur in The Canon of Medicine. The word "color" does not appear in the work.

Edits by a biased pro-chromotherapy pseudoscientist?[edit]

Concerned about the edits by User:Aero13792468 on 3 November 2016 and earlier. This is clearly quackery but he/she has tried to tweak the language in favour of this silly practice. Equinox 07:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Lets just provide the information and let readers make up their own minds – in this and the many other articles on Wikipedia. Aero13792468 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the changes that was indeed not neutral. Aero13792468, for information, we don't "just provide the information and let readers make up their own minds", we report what reliable sources tell us about the subject. --McSly (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you McSly. Famousdog (c) 11:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)