Orac picked up on my post about the guy who claims that looking at the sun can take away your need to eat food by "storing the sun's energy in your brain." He put up a long post about some of the medical absurdities with the claim, and went on to talk about the "breatharians", a group I'd never heard of before. People have actually died following that bit of claptrap. It just reinforces a point I've made time and again: there is no idea or claim so stupid that you can't find a group of people to believe it.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Almost exactly a year ago, I came across a bit of woo so incredible, so spectacularly stupid and unbelievable, that I dedicated one of the last segments I've done in a long time of Your Friday Dose of Woo to it. Basically, it was about a movie called Eat the Sun, which described a bunch of people…
With the utter ridiculousness of the arguments laid down by Dr. Oz when Steve Novella appeared on his show and the even more ridiculous silliness of J.B. Handley thinking that Matt Carey, a.k.a. Sullivan, is really Bonnie Offit, I had originally thought that I should find some peer-reviewed…
As regular readers may have noticed, I was on vacation the last two Fridays in a row. To keep Your Friday Dose of Woo (YFDoW) going, I decided to resurrect a couple of posts from the old blog that would have made good installments of YFDoW installments, had YFDoW existed at the time when they were…
Well, I'm back.
Hard as it is to believe, during my vacation I went a whole two weeks without writing a truly new post. That's something that hasn't happened in probably 12 years. Yes, as a result of the lack of original material for two weeks, my traffic appears to have taken a noticeable hit and…
You have never heard of breatharians? Throughout history there have been people (yogis, nuns, hermits) reported to be living through breath (baraka, ka, qi etc). I thought perhaps the microbes in the air and water provided them with nourishment, as well as sunshine, especially as their protein needs would not have ben high. How much energy does it take to sit beneath a tree and comptemplate the universe?
It is definitly a lifestyle thing, and reports tend to be on persons who live alone - not in groups. Interesting.
It is not really surprising that they tend to live alone - it is much easier to eat without anyone noticing if no one else is around to catch you.
Is chewing that much of a hassle? Who the heck wants go without eating, all things considered?
That's the part I don't get, who would want to stop eating? Food is one of the greatest joys of living. Saying that if you stare at the sun you won't eat anymore is like saying that if you stand on your head once a day you'll stop having orgasms - who the hell wants that?
It just reinforces a point I've made time and again: there is no idea or claim so stupid that you can't find a group of people to believe it.
Speaking of which, check out this week's randi.org to see what a slug that Sylvia Browne lady is. Was it a setup designed to embarrass Sylvia? I dunno...
Is chewing that much of a hassle? Who the heck wants go without eating, all things considered?
Oh come on, you know it's a big hassle, plus it costs a lot of money and resources.
Anyone remember the Kids In the Hall sketch about a self-help group for men trying to break the habit of going to the bathroom??
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
-- Lazurus Long
Well, you could save a lot of money if you didn't have to eat - and I suppose you could still nibble on chocolate or whatever. The big question is, could you teach this trick to your Seeing Eye dog?
The distaste for eating is based on the idea that the world is divided into things of the flesh and things of the spirit -- and that which is of the spirit is superior to the material dregs below it. If standing on one's head prevented these people from having orgasms, they might possibly advocate that as well. Mortifying or renouncing the joys of the body is a standard path to enlightenment in many forms of religion or spirituality.
Of course it seems nuts to humanists. That's the point. They're supposed to be on a "higher" level.
Which is why I am thoroughly unimpressed by the use of the devotion of Jesus' disciples and other early Christian as an apologetics argument in favor of Christianity.
It often goes something like this:
Answer: Things like "breatharians" or the Heavens Gate cult etc. etc. etc. clearly demonstrates that just because people are willing to die for something doesn't mean that there is any truth behind it. People will believe, even unto death, all sorts of silly things, so the disciples willingness to die for their beliefs gives me no confidence whatsoever in the truth of those beliefs.
The last comment being of course from me, Troy Britain, not simply "t".
[Dammit!]