Talk:Levitation (paranormal)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Frogus: I apologise for bulldosing the old article, but I think this one is less dissmissive of levitation, acknowledging its long history and peoples belief (no of course I don't believe in it!). I've also added very brief summaries of the most famous cases, but shockingly it seems that none of them have wikipedia articles for themselves yet - thats

who need articles.


There are so many references in the bible of levitating people, why isnt it included ?. Or why favor budhism here, the list of levitating saints is a lot larger to give it a start : Saint Teresa of Avila Simon Magus (he was considered evil) Saint Francis of Paula Gemma Galgani Joseph of Cupertino Saint Benedict.

And jesus walking over water counts too i think. etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


The term "metaphysical" doesn't seem to apply to this concept...I have never heard of "metaphysical levitation" used as a term before, and I challege any of this article's authors to find a reputable source to legitimize this article's title. I think Mystical levitation would be more appropriate. Shaggorama 10:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Levitation at the King & Low-Heywood Thomas School[edit]

I've removed this entire section:

At the King & Low-Heywood Thomas School in Stamford, CT 17 students in Mr. Schpero's 
Vietnam History class successfully elevated their school 30 feet in the air for 
approximately 2 minutes. This levitation occured between 12:18 and 12:20 pm on 
November 22nd, 2006.[verification needed]

Given that levitating an entire school would require the reconstruction of all the plumbing and wiring thereto, that the article is not sourced, that the editor made only this one entry to Wikipedia, and that there are no relevant Google entries that don't lead back to this article, I'm going to delete this as nonsense.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Levitating saints[edit]

Are people just making these lists up? Few have any citations. I'm going to rip them all out soon William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

re: Recent article "improvement"[edit]

For the sake of preserving information for future expansion, here is how the article appeared before it was stubbed to barely nothing. -- œ 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is the diff [1]. I don't see any discussion of that. It wasn't a great article, more a list of lists. Was that valuable? I'm not sure William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No it wasn't that great. But however bad it was, indiscriminately blanking everything "pending a rewrite" which never came, was worse. -- œ 09:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, since I agree I've restored the article but then tried to regroup it a bit. I think it could do with more text and less examples. For example, I'd be tempted to say (of Christianity, say) that levitation used to be a proof of holiness but is now regarded as a bit of an embarassment. But I've no source for that so I won't. But some kind of context of how the Church views this stuff would be worth having William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring it. I really enjoy reading about these topics. Yes I agree it needs work. If only a prose-pro could come along and somehow weave this together into paragraphs, that would make for really interesting reading, but it would take more research and searching for references. In the meantime, the tags are there, and the article does its job sufficiently. -- œ 11:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


I think this video should be linked in any part of the article.-- (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible scientific explanation[edit]

I propose this section be either expanded with a thorough critical discussion, or deleted altogether. In its current form, it is misleading about the scientific acceptance and underpinnings of the phenomenon, and includes vague legitimate-sounding terms which are basically just buzzwords and lacking any context. The use of quotation marks in "tapping into" is especially telling. Also, both the ideas of harnessing zero-point energy, and of the mind being able to directly manipulate the physical world are controversial and more in the domains of metaphysics and pseudoscience. --Rubseb (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it's pseudoscientific gibberish. - Sikon (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Glad you agree. I'm not sure what the conventions are for handling this sort of thing but I'll just remove it and see what happens. If people think it should be included then hopefully they'll react by putting it back in a better form or at least making a case for it. --Rubseb (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)