I stumbled across this post from Psypost entitled “Scientific evidence proves why healers see the ‘aura’ of people,” published May 5, 2012. The post says that researchers at the University of Granada have been able to explain the claims of healers of being able to see the aura around people.
I am all for scientific research and curiosity. If eventually science is able to explain the aura and other such things, then great. That’s fine and dandy. However, I have some serious doubts that this “scientific evidence” holds much credence. Not only does it sound as if the “research” extends to nothing more than interviews with “healers,” but there does not seem to be any measurable scientific evidence presented at all–at least in this posting. I’m no scientist, but from what I understand of scientific research, you need quantifiable data to examine, and it sounds like their “data” is taking the word of people who claim to be healers and able to see the aura.
University of Granada researchers affirm that healers present synesthesia, a neuropsychological phenomenon involving a “mingling” of the senses. The results of this study have been published in the prestigious journal Consciousness and Cognition. The authors remark the significant “placebo effect” that healers have on ill people.
I do believe it’s possible to see auras. I do believe healers exist and that energy healing exists. I couldn’t do what I do in spells if I didn’t believe it’s possible to manipulate energy to achieve a specific goal. Sure, it sounds crazy. I’m fully aware of how utterly quacked it sounds, as are a number of people I know who work spells. It sounds mad. But I also can’t deny that I and others have achieved results by working energy. The aura is basically a type of energy field. It’s not a leap for me to go from working spells to seeing the aura (although I, at present, cannot). I would trust this research a lot more if they had included data from aura photographers. Those who have been in that business for many years would be able to give scientists boatloads of data, I’m sure. Then include the healers. But then they would also have to define what a healer is, what “healing” means, what “aura” is, and so on. I don’t know if these researchers did any of this–I haven’t been able to get my hands on the original paper–but it doesn’t sound as if they did.
My point here, I suppose, is that science is more than welcome to attempt to prove things like auras, ghosts, ESP, and all the rest, but if they’re going to do so, then stick to actual science and proper scientific method.
