The other day while cooling down from practicing yoga, I had a thought. Yah, yah, I know, it’s a life altering concept isn’t it. But, it still happened and I’m here to share it.
A while back I set my intention during a meditation session to understand how it is that the body focuses energy. And, I feel that part of that understanding has been delivered.
The class had virtually finished and the instructor talked us all through the relaxation process of the savasana pose (corpse pose where you simply lay on your back and cool down after your workout). During this time, I found myself able to relax, but my mind tracked what felt like spiraling energies around my Being. The act of experiencing the spiraling energies felt like watching the northern lights around my Being. It was kind of a wild display of areas that had higher densities of light where as other areas were less dense. As I watched, these energies seemed to move like a Walt Disney animated flame from one area to another.
As I observed this activity I was impressed that as you think about different things the light density changes as it acts upon that thought. So, the act of thinking changes the energy flow (light) that normally is dispersed rather evenly around your Being so as to make more concentrated areas and less concentrated areas. In a way, like waves, but these waves are more like computer interpretations of analog sound displayed as densities of light.
As I was enjoying the flow of light around my Being (I say Being because it wasn’t around my body, but it felt like it was around my consciousness as if I was the observer and the light show was happening around my observation point) and the instructor came over and interrupted this activity. But not in a bad way.
You know how instructors may help realign your body as you lays there in the savasana pose? Well, if you haven’t experienced this, they may shake the tension out of your legs, press on your collarbones (shoulders) to break up neck tension and then align the head via touching pressure points on the back of the neck and, sometimes, lifting the head. It’s all a very gentle process that is like a mild massage.
Well, as I was saying, I was enjoying this little light show and the instructor came over to perform this alignment starting with the shoulders and finishing with the neck. The moment she touched my shoulders the light stopped ‘dancing’ and then as she held both sides of my neck the light density completely evened out so as to form a perfect circle of calm activity.
It was really quite amazing in a subtle type of way.
As it turns out, the instructor is also a Reiki healer. I didn’t ask her at the time what she thought – or what her intent was at that moment, but I just might. And, likewise, there may be something in Reiki that I need to experience with regards to light. But that is just a hunch.
So, what does this have to do with focusing energy? It may simple be related to thought. I will investigate more and see if I can find the right words to describe it.
Have a great day!
PS. Here is a pretty good rendition of what I witnessed. It is a time lapse of the northern lights as only National Geographic can do.
I really do have to admit that the article I read about the ‘starving yogi’ really has left me with a head full of questions and what’s most puzzling is not the questions, but the type of questions. It’s not; can someone really live without eating, but rather, what is his body running on? Are we all running on the same thing without knowing it? Why do we sleep? And, is he more efficient than the rest of us? Is he more efficient than the rest of us?
I’m sure the list could go on and on, but the idea that really spurred me on this morning came after reflecting on the words of the female interviewed in the pranasynthesis video (found on this page). I’ve written down her words here (found 3:28 seconds into the video):
It’s impossible for us to generate heat or light energy from looking at the sun almost liken it to photosynthesis which is the process by which plants generate their energy supply and this is absolutely impossible for a human being to do.
I would have to completely agree with a small part of her statement; Humans are not plants and, so, I would have to agree with her that humans do not do photosynthesis within their bodies. Photosynthesis is a well defined process performed by chlorophyll molecules.
Yet is it interesting to read the Light reactions process on the Wikipedia page associated with photosynthesis.
In the light reactions, one molecule of the pigmentchlorophyll absorbs one photon and loses one electron. This electron is passed to a modified form of chlorophyll called pheophytin, which passes the electron to a quinone molecule, allowing the start of a flow of electrons down an electron transport chain that leads to the ultimate reduction of NADP to NADPH. In addition, this creates a proton gradient across the chloroplast membrane; its dissipation is used by ATP synthase for the concomitant synthesis of ATP. The chlorophyll molecule regains the lost electron from a water molecule through a process called photolysis, which releases a dioxygen (O2) molecule. The overall equation for the light-dependent reactions under the conditions of non-cyclic electron flow in green plants is:[17]
That, is the Wikipedia’s wording for, electric current. It’s kind of funny how things link together. The light reactions in a plant with the moving electron seems to parallel what we ca electric current.
So ultimately it all stems back to the photon, which came from the sun that triggers an electric current in the plant.
Now the question is, is it the photon that’s important, or the electric current? Looks like the photon triggers the process by freeing up an electron, but the electron is that the plant uses for its photosynthesis process. It’s the electron that’s flowing around within the plant, not the photon. Yet, it took a photon from the visible light spectrom to kick start the process.
If the photon is so important to the plant, maybe it might be important to the human body too, but not specifically for photosynthesis.
The modern concept of the photon was developed gradually by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light’s energy, and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. …
Let’s see, “matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium.” Or matter and electromagnetic radiation co-exist in a relatively stable, yet delicate balance.
So, if a photon is a basic unit of light, as in the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation, and we know that electromagnetic radiation is compressed of all wave lengths (not just visible light) – one might have to conclude that there are photons out there of all different types just waiting to trigger electrons free in some type of matter somewhere.
Might they be triggering electrons free in this yogi? Maybe that yogi is sensitive to a particular type of light?
So, back to the woman’s comment about photosynthesis in the human body. She states that it’s impossible to generate heat or light energy from looking at the sun. Which, I believe she means, it’s impossible for the human body to create sugar by starring at the sun. But, I’m unclear what she means about heat energy, for we’ve all seen snakes warming themselves in the sun.
But could it be possible to get electrons to flow by allowing in more electromagnetic energy into the body? Could there possibly be a particular wavelength of light that resonates with the human body in such a way that it sparks electrons to flow?
This yogi mentioned the crown chakra. Could this be a filter for the electromagnetic energy (that’s always around in the form of photons) that works to trigger electrons to flow in the body? That flowing of electrons would be similar to what the body does when it breaks down food? (breaking down food gives off electromagnetic energy. See Is food another form of light.)
If the body runs on electromagnetic energy, it might seem logical that any source that could provide electromagnetic energy to the body would be considered ‘food’.
So now the question is, if the yogi is ‘normal’ in every sense (as the doctors measure him), might that imply that we all have the genetic makeup to harvest energy the same way he does?
There are still tons of unanswered questions, but it’s a fascinating journey and I’m totally looking forward to seeing what comes along next. And by the way, I love how they end the video clip: It is not a miracle, it is supernatural!
Many years ago, a wonderful friend gave me a used copy of Viktoras Kulvinskas planetary healers manual. At the time, I was a volunteer at a religious retreat and had plenty of time in the evenings to read. I’m sure I read that book multiple times.
About a year ago, I ordered up another copy and read it, again, cover to cover. By today’s standards, I have to say that book cracks me up. It’s, oh … so groovy man, you gotta just feel the vibes. Lol.
Yet, I have to hand it to Viktoras Kulvinskas, he’s still selling copies and I’m sure that book was divinely inspired. The best part about that book was that he approached his topics with just enough science backing to make you believe that the subjects just might hold a little truth.
On topic that he covers, but doesn’t cover very well is the idea of Breatharianism. The idea that someone could live on nothing but the life force in the air. I’ve always thought it curious and magical at the same time.
When I brought this idea up to my older daughter, she immediately stated “they cheat. No one can live on air.” My response was along the lines, ‘are you sure’?
When it comes down to measuring a lot of things in life, we can say with confidence that, say, when you let go of an apple, it will fall to the ground. Yet, people like to generalize things and so they make absolute statements like ‘if you let go of it, it will fall to the ground.’ But, is that really true in the absolute sense?
The absolute measuring may not apply to the human body. We may ‘think’ we understand how the human body works, but what I’m discovering is that we (as scientists) have discovered how a bunch of the little processes seem to behave within the body and some classic cause and effect situations. But not the full end-to-end story.
In the simple case, the generality is: Sugar gives the body energy. This statement then gets turned upside down so as to state: the energy that the body needs is acquired from sugar. But is that really the truth?
Let’s come back around to that concept of breatharianism. That idea was a key trigger inspiring me to write the post on Prana. Might there really be energy in the air? Might there be enough to sustain someone?
Or, is there another source?
Part of the reason for revisiting this topic is because I came across an article on MSN that talked about ‘the Starving yogi’. He claims to have not eaten since he was 15 (or twelve depending on the source). To me, the MSN article has sensationalized the science behind the 10 (or 15 depending on which news source you read) day ordeal in order to get readership up.
My first reaction to the article was – He’s not starving! If he was hungry he would have eaten something!
Then, if you visit this other article, it looks like one of the scientists is quoted as saying:
If Jani does not derive energy from food and water, he must be doing that from energy sources around him, sunlight being one,” said Shah.
Deriving energy from water? That is new to me. I’ll overlook that, for everyone can be mis-quoted.
Looking a little deeper, it turns out that there is a video clip on YouTube titled pranasynthesis that is absolutely worth the 4.25 minutes.
What’s unfortunate about this video is the female scientist that’s interjected just about 3 minutes in. And, of course, the editing of her ‘impossible’ statements into the legitimate interview that they are doing with the scientist (Shah) applies someone else’s agenda to the video clip, but we can watch with an open mind.
The narrator also mentions that Shah has a theory about how this yogi survives – he’s feeding off the sun – solar gazing. He goes into details about what must be done. It’s pretty clear that Shah is open minded about the process. Yet, the female is edited in again with a series of misleading “impossible” statements that are really… irrelevant to the observation. Of course people don’t do photosynthesis – plants do that to store energy. What if he’s using the energy directly?
And, by the way, she states that plants generate their own energy supply via photosynthesis (about 3:40 seconds in). That, in my understanding, it technically incorrect. Plants receive energy from the sun and store it in sugars. Plants do not generate energy, they use it and store it.
Now, what they seem to skip over is the Yogi explaining how hs is able to manage (just over 4 minutes into the video) to stay energized. The narrator says, the sun transmits energy through a hole in the holly man’s throat producing a sticky solid lump that he can digest. Then, he states that it refuels the chakra energy points in his body. These words completely contradict the female talking about photosynthesis, for the yogi knows he is not recieving his energy through photosynthesis.
Ultimately, this is interesting. The scientists talk about photosynthesis and sun gazing, but the yogi talks about chakras and actually touches his head.
Seeing this video, I have to wonder if the scientists are even listening to the yogi. He seems to be telling them where the energy comes from, but they seem to only hear that they can understand.
I would love to find more videos like this so that I could learn a little bit more about ‘energy’ in the human body. This yogi seems to point out that there are energy sources other than food that are quite enough to sustain life. And, I have to admit that he looks pretty healthy.
You ever try to grow a seed after heating it? Everyone knows that if you heat something too much you kill it. We all take that for granted. We learn that at a young age and simply don’t question it. Well, that is what we will do now.
Why did heat kill the seed?
And, probably more important:
Did the heat kill the seed?
Both questions are kind of puzzling. Why would anyone question how the seed died?
To understand this a bit better, let’s look at the first signs that a seed provides to indicate that it is alive. That process has a well known name, germination. Here is what the Wikipedia has to say about germination:
Germination is the process in which a plant or fungus emerges from a seed or spore and begins growth. The most common example of germination is the sprouting of a seedling from a seed of an angiosperm or gymnosperm.
…
Germination is the growth of an embryonic plant contained within a seed; it results in the formation of the seedling.
So, if the seedling can germinate, we know that the seed is alive. I know this next part is going to sound really simple, but what makes a seed germinate? Yes, I know. This is another one of those things that just about everyone also takes for granted. At the same Wikipedia link, we see:
Seed germination depends on both internal and external conditions. The most important internal factors include temperature, water, oxygen and sometimes light or darkness.
As it turns out, the requirements needed for that little seedling align pretty well with what we humans need to stay alive. But let’s continue to focus on the seedling.
If you look closely at what the Wikipedia says about the effect that water has on germination, we find some interesting points:
Water – is required for germination. Mature seeds are often extremely dry and need to take in significant amounts of water, relative to the dry weight of the seed, before cellular metabolism and growth can resume. Most seeds need enough water to moisten the seeds but not enough to soak them. The uptake of water by seeds is called imbibition, which leads to the swelling and the breaking of the seed coat. When seeds are formed, most plants store a food reserve with the seed, such as starch, proteins, or oils. This food reserve provides nourishment to the growing embryo. When the seed imbibes water, hydrolytic enzymes are activated which break down these stored food resources into metabolically useful chemicals.[2]
So, if the seed is alive, when it takes in water and oxygen at the right temperature and with the correct amount of light, enzymes are activated which break down the stored resources into usable building blocks that the plant can use to grow.
What I find interesting is that the Wikipedia can always take a simple subject and confuse it with a lot of big words. What are hydrolytic enzymes? And what are metabolically useful chemicals?
Hydrolysis is distinct from hydration. In hydration, the hydrated molecule does not “lyse” (break into two new compounds).
Something worth noting here is that when something goes through hydrolysis, it is a chemical reaction that splits down certain polymers. Also, form the seed perspective, it’s using enzymes to perform this function. (What we don’t cover here is the reference to pH. That is a article for another day!) Yet, what is a polymer?
A polymer is a large molecule (macromolecule) composed of repeating structural units typically connected by covalentchemical bonds. While polymer in popular usage suggests plastic, the term actually refers to a large class of natural and synthetic materials with a wide variety of properties.
…
Because of the extraordinary range of properties accessible in polymeric materials,[2] they play an essential and ubiquitous role in everyday life[3]—from plastics and elastomers on the one hand to natural biopolymers such as DNA and proteins that are essential for life on the other.
So the addition of water to the seed enables it to put its water sensitive enzymes to work breaking down the stored protein or other long molecules that have covalent chemical bonds. The seed can convert long macromolecules and proteins into what it needs to grow by simply applying water based enzymes.
If you remember from a previous article (Is food another form of light) you’d remember that when the chemical bonds break down, the molecules give off electromagnetic energy (light) in the process. Thus, light is part of the growing process – from the inside out!
So, if I’m following this correctly, the enzymes are the molecules that first go to work in the germination process that will eventually show up to us humans as a growing plant.
Enzymes are proteins that catalyze (i.e., increase the rates of) chemical reactions.[1][2] In enzymatic reactions, the molecules at the beginning of the process are called substrates, and the enzyme converts them into different molecules, called the products. Almost all processes in a biological cell need enzymes to occur at significant rates. Since enzymes are selective for their substrates and speed up only a few reactions from among many possibilities, the set of enzymes made in a cell determines which metabolic pathways occur in that cell.
Like all catalysts, enzymes work by lowering the activation energy (Ea‡) for a reaction, thus dramatically increasing the rate of the reaction. Most enzyme reaction rates are millions of times faster than those of comparable un-catalyzed reactions. As with all catalysts, enzymes are not consumed by the reactions they catalyze, nor do they alter the equilibrium of these reactions. However, enzymes do differ from most other catalysts by being much more specific. Enzymes are known to catalyze about 4,000 biochemical reactions.[3] A few RNA molecules called ribozymes also catalyze reactions, with an important example being some parts of the ribosome.[4][5] Synthetic molecules called artificial enzymes also display enzyme-like catalysis.[6]
Enzyme activity can be affected by other molecules. Inhibitors are molecules that decrease enzyme activity; activators are molecules that increase activity. Many drugs and poisons are enzyme inhibitors. Activity is also affected by temperature, chemical environment (e.g., pH), and the concentration of substrate. Some enzymes are used commercially, for example, in the synthesis of antibiotics. In addition, some household products use enzymes to speed up biochemical reactions (e.g., enzymes in biological washing powders break down protein or fat stains on clothes; enzymes in meat tenderizers break down proteins, making the meat easier to chew).
Looking a little deeper into the enzyme link at Wikipedia:
Like all proteins, enzymes are made as long, linear chains of amino acids that fold to produce a three-dimensional product. Each unique amino acid sequence produces a specific structure, which has unique properties. Individual protein chains may sometimes group together to form a protein complex. Most enzymes can be denatured—that is, unfolded and inactivated—by heating or chemical denaturants, which disrupt the three-dimensional structure of the protein. Depending on the enzyme, denaturation may be reversible or irreversible.
There they go using another collection of relatively unknown words. Let’s look at denatured:
When food is cooked, some of its proteins become denatured.
Hey, that is the link I was looking for! We should eventually come back to that.
First, let’s look back at our question: did the heat kill the seed? Logically, it would seem that the heat denatured the proteins that make up the enzymes that are used to break down the stored resources that the seed needs to grow.
Looking at this a different way, after applying heat, the seed has no means of convert the stored resources (proteins and carbohydrates) into useful building blocks for growth. Because of this, the seed is effectively locked in a state of not being able to use its energy reserves.
Ultimately, the heat killed the seed. But why the heat killed the seed has to make you wonder. If heat can denature the proteins that are needed by the seed to life and grow, what kind of ramifications does it have on the human body? Doesn’t the human body need enzymes – just like the seedling does? More importantly, if heat can denature enzymes, which are protein molecules, it would hold that heat would change all types of protein molecules.
We see what heat does to proteins, what about carbohydrates?
Let’s look that up:
A carbohydrate is an organic compound with the general formula Cm(H2O)n, that is, consists only of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, the last two in the 2:1 atom ratio. Carbohydrates can be viewed as hydrates of carbon, hence their name.
…
Monosaccharides can be linked together into what are called polysaccharides (or oligosaccharides) in a large variety of ways. Many carbohydrates contain one or more modified monosaccharide units that have had one or more groups replaced or removed. For example, deoxyribose, a component of DNA, is a modified version of ribose; chitin is composed of repeating units of N-acetylglucosamine, a nitrogen-containing form of glucose.
Polysaccharides have a general formula of Cx(H2O)y where x is usually a large number between 200 and 2500. Considering that the repeating units in the polymer backbone are often six-carbon monosaccharides, the general formula can also be represented as (C6H10O5)n where 40≤n≤3000.
This polysacchraride is not simple sugar!
Yet these longer molecular structures don’t taste all that great, nor do the digest readily until they are broken down into smaller pieces. Some enzymes can perform this work, but the fastest process is heating. The heating process breaks the chemical bonds that attach the longer molecules into smaller ones.
This can be seen in the simple process of cooking a potato. Does it taste better raw, or cooked? Anyone can tell you that it tastes sweater after cooking. That’s because the longer starch molecules have been broken down into simpler sugars with register as sweet to the taste budds.
What’s also interesting is that plants have developed molecules that humans have a hard time with. Specifically, if we look up Cellulose, we find:
Cellulose is the structural component of the primary cell wall of green plants, many forms of algae and the oomycetes. Some species of bacteria secrete it to form biofilms. Cellulose is the most common organic compound on Earth. About 33 percent of all plant matter is cellulose (the cellulose content of cotton is 90 percent and that of wood is 40-50 percent).
It’s a really long polysaccharide that forms the cell wall in plants. It’s something that we don’t digest well. Cows and horses do a much better job handling this molecule with the help of microbes. Yet, the human solution to getting around this problem is to cook it. Applying heat breaks apart the cell wall which makes what’s inside the cell available to the body. Yet heating also denatures other elements of the cell.
So, what do we do?
It would seem that heating destroys key elements of our food. Elements like enzymes that we need to break down other molecules. At the same time, our bodies can’t get to all the ‘food’ in what we eat unless we can get past the larger polysaccharides that block our digestive way.
If we want the best of both worlds here, we’re going to have to get to what’s in the cell without ingesting the larger indigestible molecules. Off hand, I can think of two techniques:
Juicing
Here we simply squeeze what’s inside the cells out. If done with little friction, which causes heat, the results should be pure and highly digestible by the body.
Blending
Similar to juicing, a good blender will apply enough force to the cells to get them to break apart rendering a mixture that still contains the fibrous material along with the ‘nectar’ found inside the cells.
Both of these techniques seem like great alternatives then heating.
This investigation still leaves a number of unanswered questions.
If heating denatures proteins (destroys them) and you consume them. Can your body still use them effectively? Do these fractured pieces of molecules find function in the body? Or, do they create a situation like looking for an intact glass in a pile of glass fragments? (A nearly impossible task for surviving enzymes.) Also, might the body actually use the denatured proteins thinking that they were the real intact versions? What might this cause?
The more I learn about how heat changes molecules, the more I ask myself is it really worth consuming denatured food? Are there other alternatives like juicing and blending – or simply eating the food unaltered? What might be the best choice?
I guess I’m going to have to investigate whether or not the body can create its own enzymes and how that is done. On top of that, I’ll have to look into mucus and see what that’s made of. I heard it was undigested proteins – the above information could support that idea. Pausing and reflecting on the above, I can understand why so many people have runny noses!
The real question is what are you going to do? It seems pretty clear to me that we should be consuming foods with unaltered molecular structures. I’m going to make it a point to do so. What about you?
It looks like scientists in Japan have been able to develop cameras sensitive enough to capture images of visual light emitted from people. The article first states:
The human body literally glows, emitting a visible light in extremely small quantities at levels that rise and fall with the day, scientists now reveal.
I don’t find this strange, but rather view it as it’s about time. If you look back at a previous article that I wrote, Is food another form of light?, you’ll notice that when the body breaks down sugars (or any other molecule that has stored energy) the process releases electromagnetic energy (light). Thus, if the body is constantly breaking down sugar, it’s constantly emitting light, which should be measurable (in some way).
Thus, the scientists went to work to measure the emitted light:
To learn more about this faint visible light, scientists in Japan employed extraordinarily sensitive cameras capable of detecting single photons. Five healthy male volunteers in their 20s were placed bare-chested in front of the cameras in complete darkness in light-tight rooms for 20 minutes every three hours from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. for three days.
The researchers found the body glow rose and fell over the day, with its lowest point at 10 a.m. and its peak at 4 p.m., dropping gradually after that. These findings suggest there is light emission linked to our body clocks, most likely due to how our metabolic rhythms fluctuate over the course of the day.
Faces glowed more than the rest of the body. This might be because faces are more tanned than the rest of the body, since they get more exposure to sunlight — the pigment behind skin color, melanin, has fluorescent components that could enhance the body’s miniscule light production.
So they too might see the connection between digestion and body glow. But here they hide that connection in the fancy term metabolic rhythms.
Yet, I have to wonder about the article’s author’s reference to why the faces give off more light. I would guess that it would have to do with nerve endings or brain activity. The face is just one side of the head. Did they attempt the same experiment having the person face away from the camera? I would be willing to bet that they’d get a similar reading. In which case, the finding would have nothing to do with faces are more tanned, but maybe something like, the brain gives off more light.
It’s good to see articles like this. The body does release light, but I’m still waiting for them (some scientist somewhere) to make the connection between how plants store sunlight in the form of sugar to how the body releases the light as it breaks down the sugar. Or, more importantly, does the body run on sugar or … light?
