Sungazing with Hira Ratan Manek

[cadbrowser]

Has anyone ever heard of Sungazing? My younger sister is all a-buzz with this idea of not having to eat and to be able to get all of her nutrients and energy from the sun. Much to my dismay and surprise, my own Father has fallen into this idea as being a good one.

I am having trouble finding good, detailed information exposing this BS. Claims that it is ok to look directly at the sun during 45 min of dawn or dusk is perfectly safe because the UV rays are non-existant due to the...bla bla bla....is alone enough for me to reject. Hira Ratan Manek has been feasting on the sun since 1995 sources claim.

Apparently, NASA, and the University of Pennsylvania have confirmed many claims as to the benefits of this practice! I didn't know (yes, HEAVY sarcasm there). I have sent a request for information from NASA as I have not found anything on their website confirming any studies performed. Not that I beleive this tripe anyway.

I just need to throw good evidence at my dad so he can then disuade my sister from this nonsense.

I tried searching on Snopes, but I couldn't get anything to turn up (Sungazing/Hira Ratan Manek).

Most of everything I find on google links back to these "new age" web pages that keep making the same claims (at least several are exactly the same...possibly pingbacks?) without references or sources cited.

But, I'm also not finding anything with references that outright say this is a hoax. So I need assistance in finding it as I do not want my family to fall into this crap. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

[LaCroix]

Like , Hira matam caught eating in a restaurant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpgnZ6DgCSI

[cadbrowser]

Yeah, I saw that too. Moreso, what I'm looking for is independent medical refutation to show my dad that Sungazing will not produce these "amazing" benefits that are claimed.

[cadbrowser]

Take this for instance:

San Francisco: After a thorough check with all its scientific officers and regional offices throughout the US over two days, a NASA spokesperson has denied it had invited Hira Ratan Manek in any official capacity, or that it has anything to do with him.

Recent news reports had stated that Manek, a 64-year-old mechanical engineer, who claims he has not eaten in eight years and lives on water and solar energy, had been invited by NASA to New York to show them how it was done.

The report stated that he had left for NASA on June 27.

However, NASA spokesperson Dolores Beasley said she had no idea why press reports had claimed that NASA had invited Manek. “No one checked with us,” said Dolores, public affairs officer for biological and physical research.

“We have no record of him being involved with us. We have checked with all offices doing related research at centers such as Johnson, Marshall and Ames.”

“I am not saying that Manek is incorrect in whatever he is saying. As of yet not a single scientist has come forward to verify that he has anything to do with Manek.

“If anyone comes forward, we shall take that into consideration,” she said.
Asked if that meant a NASA scientist might have invited Manek in his personal capacity, she said, “NASA is not aware of it.”

In June 2002, NASA had apparently verified Manek’s claims when he spent 130 days with its scientists and only drank water.

NASA had even named such subsistence — on water and solar energy — the HRM (Hira Ratan Manek) phenomenon.

See those last two lines that I emphasised? I cannot find ANY supporting evidence that NASA verified any claims by Manek, or produced that name. So, even in this "news article" they are still making claims without listing sources.

Also, with regards to UV radiation. I need a source that either cites that it is NEVER ok to stare at the sun at ANY time of the day (including dawn/dusk); or I need one that gives specific UV Index where it wouldn't be considered harmful. Granted, according to the process, you start where you only stare at it for 10 seconds, then you add 10 seconds every day for 9 months, capping out at 45 min.

My understanding there is only one bio-chemical process of converting sunlight into energy, and that is photosynthesis. It is also my understanding that our eyes could never mimic this process. Is this correct?

[Lagmonster]

You might want to look up "breatharianism". This is simply a re-branding of that older, and just as lethal, form of woo-woo.

As an aside, you can read about this fraud in other articles, one of which references that the NASA claim was rejected by that organization.

[Lagmonster]

Follow-up: Information on Breatharianism and Hira in particular (along with infamous Breatharian Jasmuheen, who is responsible for several deaths via her crooked spirituality) can be found here: http://skepdic.com/inedia.html.

It's worth mentioning that people have died trying Breatharianism/Inedia/Sungazing. If you notice signs in practitioners of dizziness, aloofness, or other odd behaviour, call for medical help before they suffer serious kidney damage.

[Lagmonster]

Follow-up-up.

You asked about medical evidence that UV light harms eyeballs. Not hard to do; it's trivially easy to find warnings on the dangers of UV through most medical reference sites, such as the American Academy of Opthamology. Even the EPA chimes in on the risks.

If you want to get into the problems with photosynthesizing, you have to start doing chemistry and physics. You also have to explain the evolutionary reasons why we don't do so (even though some animals can, but there are solid, understood reasons for it that are not simply replicated by any animal with sufficient willpower).

If you really feel it will help your family if you do the work for them, you shouldn't need better than high school math to do so. But I don't honestly believe that will help, because most people take these claims on faith. Refuting them with hard fact isn't really effective. I would remind them that people die trying this, that its most serious proponents have all been outed as frauds, and that you love your family enough that you would personally stick a twinkie down their throats before you'd let them starve themselves.

[cadbrowser]

Thanks,

Someone that was lurking here contacted me via my blogs and gave me some good links as well. I also decided to contact NASA themselves to ask them about the supposed study of HRM. I should hear something from them in 10 to 15 days.

You asked about medical evidence that UV light harms eyeballs. Not hard to do; it's trivially easy to find warnings on the dangers of UV through most medical reference sites, such as the American Academy of Opthamology. Even the EPA chimes in on the risks.

See, I know and understand this. I'm afraid I need something specifically refuting the claim that it is ok to stare at the sun for a max of 45 min ONLY during dawn/dusk. Because my dad will probably nitpick this piece of their claim because it isn't specific enough. But I will include these links as well.

If you want to get into the problems with photosynthesizing, you have to start doing chemistry and physics. You also have to explain the evolutionary reasons why we don't do so (even though some animals can, but there are solid, understood reasons for it that are not simply replicated by any animal with sufficient willpower).

My dad really doesn't believe in evolution. I have yet to have a good sit down talk with him on that. He usually quotes many of the creationist bullshit. For now, i'm letting him be ignorant. But, I will look for more information to help explain it in such a way that he won't outright dismiss it (vial bio-chemical process..etc).

Unfortuantly, for me; the high school I went to didn't provide Chemistry or Physics (more on that if you REALLY want to know ), but I am a quick learner and I do have a college education (trade). And yes, I do have to do the work for them, they simply look to read biased woo woo sites to reaffirm their "beliefs". With regards to the faith side of it and the possibility of the ineffectivity of hard facts; I mean, that's a risk I have to take. If they don't listen, then yes; I most definately will stick a twinkie down their face portals.

[Lagmonster]

See, I know and understand this. I'm afraid I need something specifically refuting the claim that it is ok to stare at the sun for a max of 45 min ONLY during dawn/dusk. Because my dad will probably nitpick this piece of their claim because it isn't specific enough. But I will include these links as well.

You mean, more specific than the AAO telling you to wear sunglasses because the sun will damage your eyes? That's fairly official. Not to put too fine a point on it, but wikipedia's own article on sungazing lists the hazards and sources for them.

Okay, start here. Like you, my google-fu wasn't top-notch, but you aren't dealing with scholars here - you're dealing with people impressed by MySpace pages. This should give you some good talking points to start with.

My dad really doesn't believe in evolution. I have yet to have a good sit down talk with him on that. He usually quotes many of the creationist bullshit. For now, i'm letting him be ignorant. But, I will look for more information to help explain it in such a way that he won't outright dismiss it (vial bio-chemical process..etc).

Try the article I linked on animals that DO extract energy from light. I would argue that it's easier to explain why humans can't do something when you can show what it takes to be an animal that can.

I would also like to refer you to this article by Ed Yong, for my money the single best science columnist on planet earth. His regular blog is an excellent read for laymen interested in science.

With regards to the faith side of it and the possibility of the ineffectivity of hard facts; I mean, that's a risk I have to take. If they don't listen, then yes; I most definately will stick a twinkie down their face portals.

You're concerned with what evidence debunks their claim, but that only works with someone who wants to consider the subject objectively. Instead, you're dealing with someone who is likely concerned with how they feel about the claim. People who take woo at face value often want their beliefs to fit their worldview.

[cadbrowser]

You mean, more specific than the AAO telling you to wear sunglasses because the sun will damage your eyes? That's fairly official.

It's funny that you actually brought that up specifically. Apparently sunglasses are BAD BAD BAD for you (according to my dad) because they prevent your eyes from soaking up the energy from the sun. I mean, come on; they didn't have sunglasses in ancient times (denote heavy sarcasm). Oh, and also sunscreen is the cause of skin cancers; not UV Radiation. I'm working on that one too.

Trust me, this is a huge uphill battle that I am fighting.

You're concerned with what evidence debunks their claim, but that only works with someone who wants to consider the subject objectively. Instead, you're dealing with someone who is likely concerned with how they feel about the claim. People who take woo at face value often want their beliefs to fit their worldview.

I would see my sister like that moreso than my dad. Generally, once my dad hears evidence and can read it for himself he usually backs down and conceeds. My sister tho takes a little bit more nudging because she becomes pretty passionate for the whole mysticistic relm of wellness.

A good example is that he actually tried the whole "it's only theories" tripe on me as well. Consider this logical exercise that he posed to me (once he said when I was younger):
Spoiler

I have this trained frog. He jumps on command. I tell him to jump and he does, 36" in the air! I cut off his rear leg and tell him to jump. This time he only jumps 24". So I cut off a front leg and tell him to jump. Now he can only jump 18". I cut off his other front leg and tell him to jump. 9". Finally, I cut off his last rear leg and tell him to jump and he doesn't. So I yell louder for him to jump. Nothing. My theory is that based on the evidence in front of me the resulting loss of limbs caused the frog to go deaf.

Right? I was pretty flabbergasted that he actually thought he had some gem to wow me with. Ok, granted; it may have worked on me when I was 8, but not now. I easily demolished this bullshit exercise with the differences between hypothesis and theory, peer review, and etcetera. Once he realized about midway through my rebuttal that I was better prepaired to deal with this crap, it didn't take him long to conceed.

Lagmonster,

I can't thank you enough for the google-fu you have managed to pull up to assist me. I sincerely appreciate it.

[Lagmonster]

It's funny that you actually brought that up specifically. Apparently sunglasses are BAD BAD BAD for you (according to my dad) because they prevent your eyes from soaking up the energy from the sun. I mean, come on; they didn't have sunglasses in ancient times (denote heavy sarcasm). Oh, and also sunscreen is the cause of skin cancers; not UV Radiation. I'm working on that one too.

This would be an excellent time to go back to what I said earlier about fundamentally different foundational worldviews. You aren't just correcting one pseudo-scientific misconception, you've adopted the task of teaching people about science from the ground up. I don't want to discourage you, but when you are talking to people who look to enlightened gurus for wisdom, I've had more luck just appealing to authority (Literally: "Look, Neil deGrasse Tyson said this, and he's pretty fucking charming." "Hmm. Yeah, makes sense. He's pretty trustworthy.").

Look, I have no idea how entrenched this guy is in his worldview. But you could just call up a goddamn local family opthamologist, couldn't you? You must know somebody who needs glasses, or a parish eye care specialist who your dad wouldn't immediately pooh-pooh due to familiarity or similar philosophy. You might get lucky with "Look, I'm worried that these people are risking the health of their eyes, can I quote you - a trusted MD - as saying that he's a fucking moron?"

Or you could try something horrifically oversimplified. Use a flashlight to demonstrate the pupillary light reflex. The human eye instinctively contracts to reduce the amount of light that gets into the pupil, as the amount of light exposure increases. It's trivial then to point out that our eyes operate in complete opposite to the way that all the other photosynthetic organisms work - they are built to MAXIMIZE their exposure to light. Then remind him that all the proponents of this this ability have been outed as frauds, and their more serious adherents have died or been hospitalized trying it.

[cadbrowser]

I will keep these replys in the back of my mind, I spent a great deal of time and effort researching and writing down specific rebuttals to the claims made by sungazers. I sent it in a formated email to him about midday yesterday. He read it this morning (or at least perused it) and his reply was:

This is extremely interresting...I want more.

To that I asked him in what context and if there was any specific points he'd like explained further.

I am not sure...I just find the whole subject of "all natural" (if you will) fascinating.
Heck I can do more research as my questions arise.

I asked him to give me examples of what he means by "all natural" and reminded him that if he does his own research to pay special attention to where he is getting his information.

So we'll see what becomes of it.

Look, I have no idea how entrenched this guy is in his worldview.

I'm not exactly sure either. I get the impression that his evangelical side is falling away to grasp at any other form of spiritualism towhere he can compartmentalize it because he still wants to believe that all individuals carry a mind, body, and spirit. At one point in time he was very Fundamentalist, then borderlined on apologetics, now it seems he is looking for something else.

I'm not trying to convert him to atheism. Just want to make sure he doesn't fall into the trap of becomming a moron and then filling my sister(s) heads' with nonsense by either agreeing with their bullshit claims or encouraging blind faith in mysticicsm or whatever.

I'm not sure how trusting he is of doctors; we came from a church (20+years ago) that didn't believe in them. So I don't know how much of that brainwashing is still stuck in there.

We'll see how far I get with my first step here. Again, I appreciate you and all the others that have contributed with ideas. Thank you.

[cadbrowser]

Follow Up:

One thing that I do admire about my father is the fact that he does want to learn. Whenever I have called him out on his bullshit he immediately backs down and listens to me. Sometimes he let's his pride flex and he'll say something like, "I said that to challenge you". Or some other such nonesense. He does admit when he is wrong, that is why I hold to the claim that I can basically re-educate him in science from the ground up.

Anyway, just felt like that needed to be shared.

[LaCroix]

Since he is interested in the "natural" aspect - have you tried educating him on the mechanics of photosynthesis, and why eyes don't work that way?

And to emphasize your point, you could also show him that even if eyes could do this (which they don't), the amount of leaf area a plant needs to feed itself in comparison to the total plant(with the added explanation that a tree's trunk is actually dead material and only a thin layer underneath the bark is actually alive) is vastly different.

The fact that about 50-90% of a plant are devoted to full day energy intake for survival should make it obvious that (even if an eye were as good at energy conversion than a leaf that existst for just that job) a human could never gain nearly enough sustenance from just looking an hour or so at "low-level" sunlight.

You could look up solar energy per area and time and convert this into calories, as well.
According to wikipedia, over a year the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere at any point in time is roughly 1366 watts per square metre. Thats all of what we get, Infrared, visible, ultraviolet and what have you.
So if he were floating in orbit, and would convert 100% of that energy, and he would open his eyes as wide as he could (~0.001 m² exposed area) he would only take in 1.366 Watts.
1Watt is 0,860 kcal per hour, so an hour of sun gazing would give him 1.15 kcal(== "calories") of sustenance. Since a grown man would need about 2000kcal a day, it should be obvious that you can't live on that, alone.
(I hope my math was right... )

[cadbrowser]

Honestly, I don't think he is thinking in terms of photosynthesis, due to the fact that humans do not have chloroplasts. It is more that he has accepted their bullshit claims at face value due to the unknown voodoo woo woo mechanism that just "makes it all happen". But, if he is, or he thinks that there is some "other" mechanism in humans that can do it then this information is invaluable and I will definately keep it handy.

With regards to your math, I am not sure how correct you are. The pupil entrance can contract to as small as a 2mm diameter (which I would imagine being the case in orbit). Area of a circle = πr2. So roughly 12.566mm2 or 0.01257m2 (1 mm = 0.001 m). Since we have two eyes we come up with a total of .02514m2. Light entering the pupil would hit the retena at a focal point (blur circle?) for which I cannot find any measurements.

So if we take just the minimum contraction for the puil entrance, then I'm getting ~34.34Wph (1366p/m2 * .02514m2).

Hmmm, I'm getting vastly different results than you. Are we not considering the same variables here?

Still tho, with only acquiring 29.53kcal per hour of sungazing (IN SPACE no less), a person would have to remain in orbit for almost 68 hours a day...wait...

Impossible with "just the eyes".

[cadbrowser]

Damn, just realized, it is less...ugh damn math!

The diameter of our eye when constricted in bright light has a lower measured limit of appx 2mm. So the area of the pupil entrance for each eye is (r = 1/2d) or 3.1416mm2 or 0.0031416m2. For both eyes that gives us an area of 6.2832mm2 or .0062832m2.

Max watts in = 8.583Wph (1366 * .0062832)

Still getting vastly different numbers...oh well.

Which is 7.38kcal per hour.

[LaCroix]

You're converting mm2 to m2 wrong - its a factor of a million (1000x1000). So your second result is still 1000x too high...
And I was being generous, and allowing for power intake over the whole area of the eyeball, assuming a diameter of 25mm per wide open eye, and rounding up generously (because I was lazy).

[PainRack]

I recall criticism of Sudhir Shah tests on both HRA and Prahladi Jani which faced criticism, such as how gargling meant that the person could drink(although it was only 100ml) and possible compromising of the intergrity of the tests.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8WRQ1dUXWw

This might help, although I'm just as lousy as sourcing.......

[cadbrowser]

You're converting mm2 to m2 wrong - its a factor of a million (1000x1000). So your second result is still 1000x too high...

Awww shit...dammit. Been too long since I've done this. Sometimes I do not like calculators and computers for the opinion that it degrades my brain into laziness because I forget this simple stuff.

Ok, so 1mm = .001m. 1mm2 = 0.000001m2 : Thank you for catching that. Sometimes I feel like I need to go back to 9th grade math and refresh.

So the area of a 2mm pupil constricted in bright light is 0.000003142mm2.

Both eyes then are converting .008584W/h or 0.007380911kcal/h

And I was being generous, and allowing for power intake over the whole area of the eyeball, assuming a diameter of 25mm per wide open eye, and rounding up generously (because I was lazy).

HAHA, at least its better than stupidly converting mm2 to m2!

I recall criticism of Sudhir Shah tests on both HRA and Prahladi Jani which faced criticism, such as how gargling meant that the person could drink(although it was only 100ml) and possible compromising of the intergrity of the tests.

IIRC, the criticism of Sudhir Shah's tests were due to improper documentation and camera angels leaving obious blind spots to areas like the bathroom and etc. There was also the problem of Shah not wanting to release his data for independent review and confirmation. Many of the sungazer's claims allowed for drinking of water, milk, and etc. The main crux was that they ate no food and rarely went to the bathroom. And that they had been doing this for decades.

I believe Shah's test were considered bullshit.

[LaCroix]

If they allow for drinking milk, than you have your cheat. Humans, like all mammals can survive very long on drinking (a lot of) milk. I know, huge surprise, since milk is only supposed to provide perfect nutrition for a mammal...

[cadbrowser]

IIRC, the claims were made by consuming a glass of milk "OR" water per day. Sometimes they drank other things; but the particulars escape me now. I seriously doubt (by their claims) that anyone could survive on 8oz of any liquid (per day) for decades.