Archive 1

Archive 2

The fact that this goddamned article even exists here is yet more evidence of the inestimable gullibility and damnability of the human race. That this meshuggah bit of idiocy is even given the nicey-nice Wiki-NPOV respect shown in the article is a blot on whatever intellectual capabilities humans supposedly have. Shame on all of you! Yet another demonstration that we're fucking doomed.

Oh, and have a nice day. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, several people who claim not to eat, or not to eat or drink, have been reported as having been studied under medical observation. That living this way should not be possible, that the observational studies do not seem to have been independently replicated, and that in one case the researcher has even responded that he did not participate in the claimed study, are irrelevant to the question of whether this is fit content for Wikipedia. The article should be included because it reports on an aspect (and a very interesting one) of human behavior. If the claimed inedia, and even if the claimed studies, are fraudulent, which many (including me) feel is probable, all the more reason to include the article: it shows what a strong desire or belief many people have that supernormal powers (http://www.amazingabilities.com/index.html) exist: even medical establishments are apparently taken in or participate in the hoax. Finally, the existence of an article on a phenomenon does not imply acceptance of the phenomenon by Wikipedia or anybody else. David 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Comodor W. Falkon, founder of Arcane Sanctum... I, and my friends - we are fighting against "man" called Breatharian //alias MoneySlave // and his theories for long time... And, I'm afraid, we aren't as succesfull, as we want to be... For now, he is warned, that another open propagation of Anorexia or Bulimia - his favourite ilnesis will proceed into bann - but only on our server - www.lide.cz , but we know, that he have some clubs on www.Quick.cz and Yahoo!

(removed unsourced contentious material per policy)... (Against all our tryes)

Btw: We - fighters against him - are grouped into "church" of Deatharians ( Breatharians : people who don't eat // Deatharians people who don't breath )

I try to estabilish a Wiki-page on Wiki/Deatharians - but I'm censored... So, I'f I win, I be pleased if someone will come and discuss with us against our deadly enemies...

These links don't work any more and so were moved from the main page to here...

• The Age story: Lawyer tells court of tragic 'air diet' death
• The Age story: Jail for air diet death couple

-- Nairobiny

We are living in a world where a few control the many, of course something as dubious as living without a middleman would seem odd. You can't make narrow minded profit off of people that are free. As soon as the current dictators of reality decide it is more profitable to support life on planet earth than to self destruct is when this will be looked out with an open mind. Inedia is nothing new. It has been going on since the beginning of time. But this all is based on when you consider time began... which is again based on fascist history and fear . We have alot to learn... Please don't use the term "common sense" in the inedia definition.. Since "common sense" is incredibly relative. We would all benefit from grown ups making the call here. People that have already shut themselves off from "what is" need not apply. Reality is not a closed circle. All insecure maniacs that benefit of exploiting others for "survival", open your eyes. We have a lot to learn yet! We are just beginning! We are still in nursery school as a society! There is nothing new age about it. Take Pills 01:37, November 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Wiley Brooks sentence looks dubious to me and contradicts Wiley Brooks. Deleting it for now. — Adam Conover † 03:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence seems to imply that such people exist, I'm going to add a sentence after it clarifying that there have been no recorded cases to date. Maprovonsha172 01:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added my sentence at the end of the first paragraph so as not to interupt the writing as it was, only to add to it.Maprovonsha172 01:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence in the first paragraph. I think the 3rd paragraph covers the 'no evidence' bit well enough. Lachatdelarue (talk) 13:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know you want to give these New Agers the benifit of the doubt and everything, but there just haven't been any verified cases of this occurrence to date. Of course there haven't. Consider this simple syllogism:

P1. All animals require food.

P2. Humans are animals.

C. Humans require food.

That's obvious. Breatharianism is not only bullshit, it is dangerous bullshit. People have been hurt, and some have died, and it would be irresponsible of us to present it any different. Maprovonsha172 19:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There may be no evidence of successful breatharians, but we shouldn't make it sound like breatharianism is fictitious, either. There must be people who attempt breatharianism, because, as you mentioned, people have been hurt and some have even died. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the statement "There is no accepted scientific evidence for any of the claims put forward by the breatharians." :

During that time, he did not consume anything and "neither did he pass urine or stool", according to the hospital's deputy superintendent, Dr Dinesh Desai.

Yet he is in fine mental and physical fettle, say doctors.

. . .

A statement from Ahmedabad's Association of Physicians says that despite no water entering his body, urine nonetheless appeared to form in his bladder - only to be re-absorbed by the bladder walls.

At the end of his confinement, doctors noted no deterioration in his condition, other than a slight drop in his weight.

—from BBC story: Fasting fakir flummoxes physicians

This man spent 10 days under constant observation by physicians–far beyond the 3-4 days it is said the usual person can go without water. Is this not scientific evidence? Dforest 08:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to say 'proof' instead of 'evidence' and added info from the article you sited to the paragraph. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Like the article says, it's merely a medical mystery. I'm sure (removed unsourced contentious material per policy), like so many other New Age claims of evidence, as (removed unsourced contentious material per policy). In any event, it is irrelevant to this article, because the man doesn't claim to be a breatharian. He doesn't say he is sustained by prana, he claims a goddess sustains him through a hole in his palate. Think of Hume's maxim regarding miracles, which would be more miraculous, that he is telling the truth or that he isn't? We can usually expect the least miraculous possibility to turn out true. Since it is irrelevant to this article, I don't see the subsequent changes as justified and I will change them back. Maprovonsha172 16:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed 'of course' from the last sentence of the first paragraph, again, because it makes it NPOV. The use of the phrase 'of course' suggests a pre-existing bias or expectation. Other people obviously agree with me. Lachatdelarue (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course we do. - Omegatron 17:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Obviously" people agree with you? "Of course" we do? These are just words we use when something is obvious. Consider the simple syllogism I posted above:

x --> y

P1. All animals are consumers of food.

w --> x

P2. Humans are animals.

w --> y

C. Humans are consumers of food.

That's obvious. Breatharianism is not only bullshit, it is dangerous bullshit. People have been hurt, and some have died, and it would be irresponsible of us to present it any different.

Of course I'm going to replace "Of course." Maprovonsha172 00:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If anyone wants to dispute whether "of course" should be used they should here do so, and in so doing, should explain just why what seems obvious to me apparently isn't universally held as obvious.

What I have presented above is a simple syllogism.

All X are Y

All W are X

Hence, all W are Y

Below I have put it even more simply:

P1. That all animals require food is obvious.

P2. That all humans are animals is obvious.

C. Ergo, that humans require food is obvious.

Considering the fact that humans require food is obvious, we wouldn't be wrong in saying that, "of course humans require food." Maprovonsha172 18:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. Then read Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. - Omegatron 18:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tutorial says we shouldn't avoid objective facts. What above isn't an objective fact? Maprovonsha172 16:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not an objective fact. It's your personal opinion. Please read WP:NPOV. Then read WP:NPOV#What is the neutral point of view? again. - Omegatron 17:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

You have alot of orders. Here's one: read my post before you comment on them. You say "it" is not an objective fact, I asked "what about isn't an objective fact." So what above isn't an objective fact. Maprovonsha172 20:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because you are "sure it is something that will be exposed" doesn't make it an objective fact. Please wait for consensus to be reached on the talk page before making the same change over and over again when several people disagree with you. If you don't know what "consensus" means, please read Wikipedia:Consensus. You can't just state something on the talk page and then declare that consensus has been reached.

And stop revert warring or you will be blocked from editing. That would be pretty ridiculous over two words, wouldn't it? - Omegatron 21:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Of course" is quite properly used when something obvious is being stated. There is nothing PoV about stating objective facts; stating objective facts is plainly placed in the tutorial under "what not to avoid."

x --> y

P1. All animals are consumers of food.

w --> x

P2. Humans are animals.

w --> y

C. Humans are consumers of food.

What I have presented above is a simple syllogism.

All X are Y

All W are X

Hence, all W are Y

Below I have put it even more simply:

P1. That all animals require food is obvious.

P2. That all humans are animals is obvious.

C. Ergo, that humans require food is obvious.

If anyone wants to dispute whether "of course" should be used they should here do so, and in so doing, explain just why what seems obvious to me apparently isn't universally held as obvious. Maprovonsha172 01:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we read that. You're not listening. - Omegatron 03:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm listening, and if you've read it I'm only waiting for you to respond to it. Maprovonsha172 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The first person mentioned in the article doesn't claim to be a breatharian, so to call the next person "Another breatharian" is a false implication. I'm rewording it to clearly express the fact that the second one claims to be a breatharian, and the first one has not. Maprovonsha172 18:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove where it says that the Fakir is a breatharian, nowhere in the article did it say that he is a breatharian nor did he claim to be in the article. He claims a goddess supplies him sustainence, not the air. Then, of course, I'll have to remove from the other little anecdote "Another breatharian" since the first one isn't one. Maprovonsha172 18:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Good edits. - Omegatron 21:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

(section added for readability's sake.) --Dforest

Excuse me, but can anyone tell me what is POV about the current article? I honestly fail to see how this could possibly be POV... -- Pikhq 04:49:46, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

This version seems reasonable to me for the most part. I mainly have problems with statements like: (Note these are now removed.)

Clearly, had the test continued, she would have died.

and

Several interviewers have found her house full of food, but she claims the food is for her husband, who once went to prison for misappropriating a pension fund. (emphasis mine)

I still think this sentence is slightly problematic:

There have been no verified cases of this occurrence to date.

It depends on your definition of verified cases; no, it has not been proven that people can be sustained by prana, nor that they can go without food or water indefinitely. But the Jani case has shown a man on a total fast, without water, for 10 days under close scrutiny, with zero ill effects according to his doctors. The Hira Ratan Manek case has shown a man, also under close scrutiny, on a water fast without any supplementary nutrients, for 411 days. In his case there was a significant loss of weight, so it cannot be assumed he could continue his fast indefinitely. However, these cases are nevertheless remarkable--10 days is considerably beyond the time a normal person could go without water and remain in perfect health. 411 days is far beyond the time a normal person could go without food and survive. I also think the article focuses far too much on Jasmuheen, but that's not necessarily a POV issue, more a lack of content issue. Note it was Omegatron who tagged it POV. Omegatron, what do you think? --Dforest 06:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I presume NPOV doesn't mean we have to balance completely between human beings who claim they can live without food or drink but have not submitted to a proper "Big Brother"-house type test (due to obvious ethical reasons which occured in Jasmenine's "60 Minutes" test), and empirical evidence going back to the dawn of humanity? Kingal86 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a lot of notable information, and removed the bit about Jani, because he never claimed to be a Breatharian. He doesn't even claim to go without food the same way Breatharians claim to. He is in no way a Breatharian, so it is irrelevant to the article. The same goes for other irrelevant mentions of non-pranic inedia.

Please, out of wikicourtesy, justify further edits below. Maprovonsha172 14:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the section about Jani for now, and mentioned that this article refers to other similar belief systems as well. We can split it into two articles if it ever gets big enough. I don't think Jani even has a name for his practices.

"However, there is absolutely no evidence that prana is anything more than an example of just how imaginative the irrational ancients were."

This is POV and doesn't belong here.

"A simple syllogism in favor of such common sense"

I don't think this is appropriate in the article, so it's been removed. Saying "There have been no verified cases of this occurrence to date." serves the same purpose without assumptions. The logic doesn't seem rigorous anyway. — Omegatron 15:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't see that you added content to the Jasmuheen section. I'll try to restore it.

When you move a section from one place to another, please make that a single edit with no changes of content, because they don't show up in the diff. — Omegatron 15:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Instead, she lived to lead others to their deaths."

Also removed for being POV. You do understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, right? You are free to include as many anti-breatharian objective facts as you want (please do!), but wrapping them in editorializing is not allowed. — Omegatron 15:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the cost of Jasmuheen's house, you say "of course it's relevant". It is not a matter of course to include this even in biographical articles--which this is not. Note there is already an article on Jasmuheen. Plenty of new age gurus, self-appointed or otherwise, live in posh homes; I cannot see the relevance to an article on breatharianism. In the case of Bill Gates' home, for example, the relevance is obvious as his home is in the public eye; here it is out of place. If you disagree, the burden is on you to justify its relevance. Dforest 16:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

'"who once went to prison for misappropriating a pension fund" is not related to the issue"

Of course it is relevant. She is just as much in the public eye. Descriptions of her and her husband's character are appropriate when there are also accusations that she is a con artist. These facts were reported in newspaper articles as well. Please revert your changes so that we don't have to get into a revert war.

Sorry, I didn't notice she had her own article. — Omegatron 19:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The prison comment is an association fallacy and moreover has no relevance to whether her husband eats food. Whether it was reported by newspapers does not rectify this. Regarding the house comment, my point is that the Gates house is in the public eye, and numerous articles have been written about it. Jasmuheen's house is not, and mentioning the cost of it here is uncalled for, more so considering this is not a bio. What does it prove? Dforest 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Alot of that reverting was uncalled for. First of all, Jani doesn't claim to be a Breatharian, and actually claims to be something contrary to it. It even says in the wikipedia article as taken from the BBC article on him, "Jani doesn't claim to be a breatharian or to rely on prana but, rather, claims a goddess sustains him through nectar that filters down through a hole in his palate." There you have it. Not only does he not claim to be a Breatharian, he doesn't even claim that what he does is in any way related to "prana," which is what Jasmuheen claims to live on. Perhaps Jani should have his own article, but it is irrelevant here. I'm removing it.

As for my syllogism, I don't see how it is irrelevant or POV. It is commense sense, and common sense doesn't require rigorous logic. It's not POV to say that it is a matter of common sense, because common sense is often wrong. I'm restoring it. It logically follow, so if someone wants to elaborate on it he/she must put which premise (or both) is considered the false premise from which the conclusion that humans require food logically follows.

Also, I don't see how "However, there is absolutely no evidence that prana is anything more than an example of just how imaginative the irrational ancients were" is POV. It's not an opinion that there isn't any evidence when there isn't any, and it's not an opinion that the ancients in question were imaginative and irrational. I'm restoring it. Likewise, I don't see how "Instead, she lived to lead others to their deaths" is POV because she did. She said you don't have to eat, some people took her up on that and starved to death. She ended a four-day fast, saving her life, to live on to spread a message that lead people to their deaths. Also, I don't know why it was erased that Jasmuheen's defense was anecdotal (and failed to justify it on the talk page), which was indeed anecdotal. She said that 6,000 people around the world go without food, but she's the only one who actually agreed to go under testing and she got severely ill. There is no evidence that anyone can go a month without food, and we need look no further for proof than Jasmuheen's disastrous attempt to do so (not to mention her dead followers).

Also, I'm removing some of the irrelvant links. Jani doesn't claim to be a Breatharian, or that his alleged powers are even pranic in nature (the essential characteristic of Breatharianism is a belief that prana nourishes). The same goes for Hira Ratan Manek, and Dr. Michael Werner. These are all irrelevant to a page about Breatharianism. Maprovonsha172 21:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

However, he is considered a breatharian by many. I don't see anything that suggests he does not believe prana nourishes, or that the elixir that feeds him is not pranic, considering it is an all-pervading force. Dforest 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what NPOV means. I'll be reverting your changes. — Omegatron 21:55, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

You clearly don't know how to argue. I've justified my edits. You haven't. If you think I've violated the NPOV policy, you point out where you think I have and argue for your accusations. To quote George Dennision Prentice, "A bare assertian is not necessarily the naked truth." Don't just make proclamations, counter my arguments where you disagree.

Maprovonsha172 23:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any specific complaints justifying the POV-tag? Maprovonsha172 01:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Opinions masquerading as facts. Dforest 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Also defamatory and irrelevant biographical information.

Specifically--in your comment: "However, there is absolutely no evidence that prana is anything more than an example of just how imaginative the irrational ancients were". That you call them irrational is your opinion. Dforest 02:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No it's not. You may want to say it's just my opinion that someone is irrational, because it carries such a negative connotation, but some things are irrational just as some things are rational. Believing in something for no reason (with no proof) is irrational, and there is no reason to believe in prana. Any other examples? Maprovonsha172

Yes, it is. It's your personal opinion. We've already pointed out to you several times how your comments violate NPOV, but you ignore our arguments and make proclamations that you are always correct. A bare assertian is not necessarily the naked truth. — Omegatron 14:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

You can say anything is an opinion. Anything contested can be called an opinion. Therefore it's an opinion that the earth is round. That's my personal opinion. Wikipedia is full of opinions. Our job is to sort out which opinion sare supported by the facts. I'm waiting for you to cite George Dennison Prentice for that last sentence of yours, but whether you will or meet matters little. The fact of the matter is I have consistently argued my points, and you have responded with mere assertians. There is a differnce between argument and contradiction. If you want to tell me to use proper arguments and not assertians, I will, and I hope you won't make yourself a hypocrite by not responding in kind (with an actual counter-argument).

The following explains it quite comprehensively: x --> y

P1. All animals are consumers of food.

w --> x

P2. Humans are animals.

w --> y

C. Humans are consumers of food.

What I have presented above is a simple syllogism.

All X are Y

All W are X

Hence, all W are Y

Below I have put it even more simply:

P1. That all animals require food is obvious.

P2. That all humans are animals is obvious.

C. Ergo, that humans require food is obvious.

If you want to counter-argue and not just respond with bare assertians, do so. I would think if you disagree with anything above you either believe that it doesn't follow, or that one of the premises are wrong. Point out your concerns. Use arguements, not assertians. As George Dennison Prentice said, "a bare assertian is not necessarily the naked truth." Maprovonsha172 15:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've again removed the irrelevant cases of those who claim to go without food but don't claim to be Breatharians or even go without food thanks to "pranic energy" as all Breatharians do. Manek, Werner and Jani are not Breatharians in any way, and shouldn't be treated as such on this page. Maprovonsha172 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide whether or not Mr. Jani attributes his inedia to pranic energy. Prana is defined as an all-pervading force in Hinduism. Jani is a Hindu. It is safe to assume that he considers the elixir that feeds him to be a form of prana. It is irrelevant whether he uses the word Breatharian to describe himself.

P.S. Please be aware that removing whole sections of articles does not constitute a minor edit. Dforest 16:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In my defense regarding the minor edit thing, I tried a couple times to save and it kept saying the wikipedia was not responding, so I hit the minor edit button, and the save button, and it worked. As far as Jani is concerned, it says in the BBC article that he believes a goddess feeds him, prana isn't mentioned. Maprovonsha172 17:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you neglected to respond to my comment above, I will restate it in a form you may better understand:

• P1. Hindus consider prana to be an all-pervading force. (or "the infinite matter of which energy is born" [see prana])
• P2. Jani is a Hindu.
• C. Jani considers the elixir that feeds him to be a form of prana.

Dforest 09:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily follow. He can be a Hindu and know all about prana and still consider the elixor something different from prana. In fact he would have to, considering the fact that the elixor must be something physical, while prana isn't considered physical. Plus, he has claimed a goddess feeds him, having never mentioned prana on any record I've seen. And if prana fed you, an all pervading force, you wouldn't really need a goddess, would you? The problem here is seeing too much of a link between the oldest religion in the world (Hinduism) and the newest dogmatic thinking in the world (New Age Bullshit). Just because they both talk about prana doesn't mean they're the same thing. Jasmuheen is just riding Hinduism's coatails like so many New Agers do with Native American mythology and various other ancient belief systems. Not a very creative bunch.

Jani doesn't necessarily consider his alleged ability pranic, and even if he did it would be Hindu, not Breatharian-still not relevant to this page. --Maprovonsha172 14:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Also, your last edit summary said you removed POV content. I'm sure you can justify such edits as 'removing POV' here were you to do so again. I explain everything I'm doing on the article here. I'm trying to make the article NPOV, but there are several instances in the article where it seems bias towards the subject matter, and I try to balance that. With facts. I've justified it all above, and if you're going to revert anymore, you can justify yourself below. Show a little wikicourtesy. --Maprovonsha172 14:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

While it is possible that Jani believes the elixir is something different than prana, it is improbable. It would go against Hindu beliefs. Do you understand "all-pervading'"? It is rather presumptuous that you state that he doesn't consider his alleged ability pranic. In my understanding, Hindus believe that prana is what sustains life, on a fundamental level. As far as I know, he never denied that he obtains prana from the elixir.

Regarding NPOV, using debatable statements that start with "Of course" is not NPOV (and also against consensus in this article). Also "To be fair, however". See Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Including association fallacies about Jasmuheen's husband's alleged criminal history is not NPOV. It has no bearing on whether he eats food. The statement "There is no evidence that anyone has ever done better than her." denies the evidence mentioned, of Jani, Manek, and Bala. Also, If you wish to link to True-believer syndrome and Delusion, they should be linked from within the text, as they represent a specific critical point of view about Jasmuheen. Linking to them from the See also belies their controversial nature. Dforest 04:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

As we have little evidence either way, it may be presumptuous to either assert that he thinks his alleged "spiritual" nourishment is pranic or isn't. I think what little evidence we do have favors my view. If it was pranic, it wouldn't need to be from a godess, which he certainly has said that it is, his followers even call him goddess. Also, whatever this elixor supposedly is, I'm sure it would be physical, but Hindus maintain that prana is not physical. Furthermore, even if Jani would claim his alleged powers are pranic in nature, they would still be Hindu, and not Breatharian and thus, not relevant to this page. You could place that section on the Hindu page. But as I said above you're confusing the world's oldest religion with the world's newest form of dogmatic thinking (New Age Spiritualism), Breatharianism is nonsense, the main propenant showed us that in her failed test. The only people benifting from this are the people making money off of the books and seminars, and they wouldn't be making nearly as much if they weren't exploiting Hinduism's reputation amongst "spiritual people," in effect riding Hinduism's coattails to riches. Jani is irrelevant in a page about Breatharianism simply because he is Hindu, not Breatharian.

I do think it's relevent to explain the character of Ellen Greves and her husband, as Omega has said, because their characters have been called into question. It is relevent to know if they have committed white-collar crime because many people believe Ellen Greve's is making a living off of white-collar crime (in the way L. Ron Hubbard did). And as Omega and I find it relevent, it has consensus here.

As for the, "To be fair, however," I'll agree to remove that but not what follows it. It is notable, to be fair. If we were to end that paragraph at her quote we would be favoring her.

As for controversial See alsos, my two aren't the only ones. Most of those See alsos are controversial, not least of which Qi, so if I'm to put delusion and true-believer syndrome in the text I think Qi ought to be as well. --Maprovonsha172 15:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not a matter of lack of evidence; to assume Jani does not receive prana would go against conventional Hindu thought. That he says he obtains this water from a goddess does not preclude it containing prana; that argument does not follow. There are thousands of gods in Hinduism; Indra, for example, is sometimes called the god of prana.

It is a matter of definition of the word "breatharian". You appear to be defining it as a religious movement that precludes Hinduism. This is nonsense, it goes against the definition in the article, and there is no reason Jani should be excluded from the article.

Regarding Jasmuheen (Greves) & her husband, Wikipedia is not the place for character assessment, particularly if it involves association fallacies. Her husband's alleged criminal past has no bearing on whether he eats food.

re: "One wonders if if (sic) 6,000 people can do it without any problem, why she had such problems in the conditions she requested."

The pronoun "one" should be avoided on Wikipedia; see WP:MOS#Avoid_self-referential_pronouns. It would be more appropriate to move these comments to a paragraph describing a skeptical point of view, I.e. "Skeptics wonder if 6000 people..."

I agree with you that Qi does not belong in the See also.

Finally, I invite you to read WP:NPOV#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone. Tacking on opposing views to the end of a paragraph gives an implied negative stance to the article. These should be moved to a separate paragraph, and it should be made clear they are skeptical interpretations. If they are not attributable to a documented source, they should not be included.

Fairness and sympathetic tone

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

--Dforest 05:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the main problem now appears to be the disputed definition of Breatharianism. Perhaps we should change it to Inedia. Everyone agree? Maprovonsha172 15:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with changing the article title to Inedia, since the article deals with non-Breatharian self-proclaimed inediates? Maprovonsha172 15:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed "According to the Skeptic's Dictionary, Jani's story is a hoax using obviously amusing names. [1]" The names have no relation to the schoolboy captions they label them with. 82.9.180.204 15:26, 11 February 2006

Remember to sign your entries with four tildes. I have done it for you.

Do you have evidence that the Skeptic's Dictionary is wrong? I can't check because I don't speak the original language (Hindi or whatever it was). -- Fyslee 17:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You realize the skepdic entry name definitions are jokes, right? — Omegatron 01:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please enlighten me. The newsletter is dated Dec. 1, not April 1, but maybe there is more to this story than meets the eye: Are you suggesting that Dr. Carroll is being deceptive? Do you speak the language? What gives here? I know, lots of questions, but I really would like to know the background here. -- Fyslee 10:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we rename the article to something more general? I can't think of a better name. — Omegatron 20:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You could make a different article about something more general, but I don't see why all the work we've put into this one should be cast aside to change it's content so drastically. Of course you could make a differnt page entitled Inedia, and include Breatharians among the many other people that claim to do about the same things through different means (Jani, Werner and Manek to start you out). You could also reply to my replies above regarding which one of us is making bare assertians, but I suppose that's a seperate issue just as inedia is a more general and seperate issue from this page. Breatharianism isn't just an alleged phenomena, as inedia is, it's a New Age belief based on a Westernization of Eastern concepts. If Hindus across Asia could live on "pranic energy," they wouldn't be starving or at least malnourished. Unfortunetely for everyone, the woman saying this is all possible couldn't last four days without facing serious medical problems, possible long-term kidney failure and no doubt her own death, were she to have continued. Maprovonsha172 04:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If "inedia" is a term used by these other people, I see no problem with moving them to their own inedia article and keeping the two articles linked to each other. — Omegatron 18:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm going to remove the Category:Diet, because a diet is the sum of food consumed by an organism, and so Breatharianism is not a diet so much as it is the fatal lack of a diet (as it was for the three people that tried). --Maprovonsha172 22:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The category is appropriate. It's diet-related. — Omegatron 18:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Being the opposite of something doesn't make it related.Maprovonsha172 23:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does. — Omegatron 23:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it depends on how far you're willing to stretch the word related. If you want to be a dick about it, in a way, yes, everything is related. My point is, you wouldn't put a science category for the opposite of science, or a diet category for the opposite of a diet.Maprovonsha172 03:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Would do you disagree that Category:Pseudoscience should be in Category:Science? I don't think Omegatron wants "to be a dick about it". Remember, civility is a policy here. Dforest 03:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The line about 6,000 people is too much. There is NO evidence that these people exist, and leaving her quote end that paragraph (which is to say, allow her lie to pass off as respectable) is unwikipedian. It's misleading, and if that's wikipedian, there's no hope for this site's credibility. She was lying. She was rationalizing her failure. It deserves to be followed by the facts.

And if this article is going to include Jani, we'll need to call it Inedia. Maprovonsha172 22:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And if anyone is going to dispute these edits, justify those revisions below: Maprovonsha172 03:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one editing this page with any wikicourtesy?

Whoever added the Roman Catholicism bit showed his ineptness. It was placed under "Other explanations." What other explanation?

Also, this is more Inedia than it is Breatharian. The title of this page must change.

And if you're the same person that removed the basic facts placed after Ellen Greves' quote to balance the POV you had better justify that here. Maprovonsha172 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding your personal point of view to the article. If you want to know who made a change, look at the history. — Omegatron 03:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the one adding my point of view. I'm balancing the article's pro-Jasmuheen POV. Allowing her lie to pass off as truth is being overly-kind to her, in other words, adding your POV. Look up "What not to avoid" in the NPOV tutorial. We're not supposed to add objective facts, even if they are for or against something. The fact is that Ellen Greves has never named those 6,000 people, and for all we know, she just pulled that number out of her ass. No self-proclaimed breatharian has ever done better than her under constant supervision. These are facts. If you think adding facts is POV, you had better read over the NPOV tutorial. Maprovonsha172 18:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read the NPOV tutorial again. You clearly don't understand. We are supposed to add objective facts, and aren't supposed to add our personal viewpoints. You continue to add a paragraph of your personal speculation to the article after you've been reverted and told not to do it many times. Please reach consensus on the talk page before making further edits. You keep saying "justify further edits on the talk page" but refuse to do so yourself.

Is this clearer? This is how editing is supposed to work:

1. Be bold and add whatever you think is relevant to the article.
2. Someone reverts parts of it and claims they are POV.
3. At this point, if you disagree with their reversion, you take it to the talk page:
   • Do not re-add the paragraph to the article, since it has been disputed. Doing this once is forgiveable, but more than that and you're revert warring, which is very bad and accomplishes nothing.
   • On the talk page, describe what you added to the article and why it should stay there.
   • Wait for other people to comment.
4. If a consensus is reached on the talk page that your paragraph belongs in the article, re-add it.
   • Consensus means that everyone who comments is in agreement.
   • Consensus does not mean you, alone, saying that you are right.
5. If no one else comments on the talk page for, say, a week (depends on the popularity of the article), feel free to re-add it without consensus.
6. Rinse and repeat. — Omegatron 18:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The tutorial clearly states that we shouldn't avoid objective facts. Sometimes the facts sway to one POV, that's way it is. Some people are wrong and some are right. I'm not saying who is right in the article, I'm presenting objective facts that would lead any reasonable person to believe whatever the facts suggest. If you don't think their objective facts, you've yet to dispute them here. Who are 6,000 people? And why, if they have no problem going without food for years, did Ellen Greves nearly die of dehydration in the conditions she requested after 4 days? Leaving the quote at the end of the paragraph implies that she was saying is definitive. In fact, it was a lie she used to justify her failure. She was saving face with a line of bullshit you're defending.

If you're incapable of understanding why leaving that lie at the end of the paragraph at the end of the paragraph is POV, perhaps you should request a mediation as this is going nowhere. Of course I'm going to revert it, re-introducing objective facts, and thus balancing the POV. Maprovonsha172 19:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

And an Australian journalist who was checking on to a flight with Jasmuheen was surprised to hear the airline attendant ask (removed unsourced contentious material per policy) [2]

She added: "I would like to offer my sincere condolences to Verity's family and friends. Unfortunately, I have never had the pleasure of connecting with Verity during her life - from what I have read, she sounds like a remarkable woman." [3]

Breatharians believe they are sustained by Pranic light, an ancient spiritual belief in the light of God which is found across the universe and inside everyone. But the organisation has been dogged by scandal. In 1983, most of the leadership of the cult in California resigned when Wiley Brooks, its 47-year-old leader, who claimed not to have eaten for 19 years, (removed unsourced contentious material per policy)[4]

“I asked for fresh air. Seventy per cent of my nutrients come from fresh air. I couldn’t even breathe,” [5]

"I have found another form of nourishment. It's called Pranic light, which is the light of God found all over the Universe and inside everyone," [6]

The guru is said to have converted more than 5,000 people to her foodless diet. Most live in Germany. [7]

"Every second second a child dies from hunger-related disease. This is unnecessary and a group of dedicated, tough, well-trained, self-selected warriors (known also as the Knights of Camelot) have been utilising themselves as guinea pigs to prove that human beings do not need food to live." [8]

"This individual claims there are about 5,000 breatharians internationally, but cannot name any. She says there have been studies, (removed unsourced contentious material per policy) [9]

Maybe a list of quotes? Probably belongs under her own article, though. — Omegatron 04:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The fourth one is taken out of context. She says, "I asked for fresh air. Seventy per cent of my nutrients come from fresh air. I couldn’t even breathe." But the article goes on to say that she was moved to a mountainside retreat where could have plenty of fresh air, and she even said she would do fine there. A couple of days of fresh air later, she was shaking, her pupils were dilated, and she stopped the test. Maprovonsha172 17:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In the first sentence of the second paragraph it says, "Breatharianism or inedia," implying that two distinctly different things are really different words for the same thing. Inedia is an alleged practice that has been believed about for a long time. Breatharianism is a New Age manifestation of this irrationalism. It involves a few charismatic leaders lying to people, and people suffering for that. Usually I can agree that even if what New Agers say is untrue, they may not necessarily be lying. But in this case there is no room for such apologetics. The two most famous leaders in the Breatharian movement, Wiley Brooks and Ellen Greves, have been caught ordering food. This shouldn't surprise anyone. This is all just nonsense, after all. But the article doesn't do a good job of sorting out fact from fiction. In an effort to balance the POV, some wikipedians try to defend the subject the article concerns. This is the most pleasant explanation I can imagine for this article. There is, however it came about, an undeniable pro-inediate claims POV which must be reconciled. The article should be re-written from an NPOV standpoint. Maprovonsha172 20:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please be patient. I imagine the article will be split into two eventually. If you think editors are defending breatharians, you're imagining things. We're defending the neutral point of view, and you're trying to insert your personal opinion into the article. This isn't about whether people can survive for months without food (an absurd idea). This is about reporting on those people without getting our personal feelings wrapped up in the report. This isn't a skepdic entry. — Omegatron 01:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

And all I want to do is report the facts. It is a fact that no self-proclaimed breatharian has done better than Ellen Greves did under the supervision of doctors. I think we can be certain that she was saving face when she said that 6,000 people in the world have no problem going without food. It is bullshit, as Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined it, it is a complete lack of respect for the truth in favor of some end (furthering the interests of the Republicans, the Democrats, Coca Cola or Jasmuheen herself). I agree that that shouldn't be in the article. We don't have to say that she was probably lying. We need only say that it's unclear who these 6,000 people are, if they exist at all. Also, we must make it clear that some people wonder if these 6,000 people can go without food just fine, why she had so much trouble (being the leader of the "movement") in the conditions she requested. That's not my opinion, it's backed up by reputable links which were deleted with the rest. Maprovonsha172 02:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty silly that you think including her quote about 6000 people is giving her credibility. It had the exact opposite effect on me. I think it's subtly POV against her, actually, the way it's phrased right now. "When challenged about her failure to do exactly what she has been teaching to many other people, she responded 'Look, man... I mean, like... tons of other people have done it, so it's real, ok?'" Yeah, that's a really great rebuttal, lady.

I mean, obviously 6,000 people aren't going around not eating or we would hear about them in the news like the other three, but 6,000 followers is not unrealistic, it seems. This site says she sells 20 books a month at a single store. She claims 20,000 followers around the world, 10,000 in Germany.

Anyway, what you added was like "one has to wonder who those people were...", which is just editorial. You need to quote or describe the opinions of people besides yourself. Not only is it our policy, but stating your opinion like that doesn't hold any weight with anyone. If you want to scare people away from breatharianism you have to do it with facts. (Not that facts work on these people, either, but eh...) — Omegatron 03:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if Greves wasn't just making stuff up to save face, 6000 "followers" doesn't mean 6000 people that never eat. There are, unfortunately, millions of people that believe in ("follow") equally stupid things, but that doesn't imply that they can really cure cancer by touch, have a good reason to stay at home on Fridays the 13th, or even have any idea what they're talking about. Witness the perversion of Kabbalah and astrology into mere trends by the clueless (and no, I don't mean to dismiss the former out of hand, it's just the most obvious). What is your real problem with this, Map? Your misunderstanding (or bias, or whatever this is) is obvious from your first comment here. Neither the NPOV nor total rewrite templates belong here; it is abundantly clear that the subject matter itself is bullshit, but the article itself is well-written and doesn't try to pass off statements by proponents as truth. Same reason we don't just delete all articles pertaining to religion, junk science or urban myths, really. - Straker 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The article is reasonably good, and does not need rewriting. Comparing with the excerpts on apologeticsindex.org however, shows some factual errors: She was moved there on the third day, not for the last three days - which is not the same, assuming it was for a full 7 day week. Most importantly, the test was indeed for one week, not one month. I'll make those changes now. The section on Yan Xin looks rather orphaned, perhaps it could be included in the previous one, unless it can be fleshed out a little more?

Maprovon, you say that breatharianism and inedia are two distinct issues, I agree. Especially since there's the section on Roman Catholicism, inedia shouldn't be equated with breatharianism. Pointing out that breatharianism includes inedia should be enough. Also, it's interesting that the two most famous figures have been caught ordering food (oh, the scandal!), but you'll need to find a source for that before including it.

Also, I don't think there's enough material here to split in into two articles, as was suggested. And before y'all go forth and multiply the content, remember Wikipedia's official policy on original research, i.e. it is not wanted at all. Report the facts and do cite the source.

"All animals need food, people are animals, so all people need food."

There have been rare occurences of "Bretharians". Let's say the ratio "people who claim they need food":"people who claim they don't need food" is for example 1:0,000000001.

How many animals do we know? Have we observed all individual animals? or at least 50%? 30%? Where do we think we know about animals, or more specific, mammals? Books, Zoos, from our pets, from Safaris, documentaries... Is this at least 20% of whole population? Think about it.

What do we know about the ones that we observed, preferably in their natural habitat (so no pets or animals bred for meat, cause we know that we also act diferently in forced or unnatural habitats.Or when under stress etc.)? We know that they eat food, not that they need it. Because every person on earth walks (with exception of disabled for whichever reason), but we don't need walking to survive, do we?

So... how do we know that there is not 1% of animals that don't eat or need food? So how can we say that in human population this is not possible in that 0,000001%?

From the perspective of energy: If we live, breathe, walk, run... we are moving our body. We are not moving it in constant speed and constant direction, so there are accelerations and decelerations, for which we need force. To produce force, we need energy.How do we (potentially) get energy? Air, sun (via skin and via heated bodies on earth), water, food, (prana). From the "transmition of energy" point of view and based on Newton's laws, the less we move, the less energy we need.

How do we know how much energy we need to survive? Statistics? How much energy is in our feces, when it goes out? How much percent was it used? What is energy? One kind of energy is stored in bonds between atoms in molecules. When we consume these molecules in shape of food, they are broken apart in our digestion system. If we don't chew food, stomach needs more energy to break the food into very small pieces. If we ate heavy food (saturated fats), body needs more energy to break them apart to Carbohydrates. If we eat food that changes the Ph value of blood, kidneys need more energy to equalize the Ph. In the end there are Carbohydrates. Which can be transformed into fats and stored under skin or they are source of energy when they pass the loungs.

I wonder how much energy and action is needed for the human body to process all the food and how much is net gain of it. Someone should do a research.

I am not convincing anyone. I am sceptical. Because if we accept that everything what majority of people do is "normal" (wanted) and essential for life, it may soon be normal and essential that we make war, that we take medicines on a daily basis, etc. All those things in my opinion, along with food, are a kind of drugs that make us happy for a short period of time, but in long-term destroy our body.

So i am saying that we cannot say that every human being needs food (as we know it) to survive for a long time.

Just a thought.

Aambro 08:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Same could be said for animals that levitate, or transmute into space aliens, or shoot streams of molten lava. "Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't happening." — Omegatron 19:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Your (I mean the majority of the people in this forum) approach to this topic is very unscientific because it is obviously coloured by prejudices. It does not fit your world view therefore all of them (breatharians) must lie. This was your conclusion already in the beginning and I am sure you found enough material to support your view scientifically. But there are also some resources which contradict your scenario and dont forget, it only needs one, because if one person is able to live without food, the possibility that there are more is increasing very fast.

Hira Manek has been observed by a team of scientists in Ahmedabad India for more than 200 hundert days. So there is a scientifically reported case of a man who does not eat. But this fact does not seem to count in the minds of the most of the people in this forum. Also Prahlad Jani or in the past Therese Neumann have been reported BY SCIENTISTS not to eat. But you prefer to write about the husband of Ellen Greve who has been in jail....

You say that human beings are animals, biologically this might be true but there is a fundamental difference between a human being and an animal: a human being has a mind and the mind is probably (I guess you agree) one of the most powerfull instruments in existence as we know it. There are much more possibilities and powers in the human mind as your kind of people tend to believe. Thousands of people have gone through the 21-day-process (7 days without drinking) without being harmed (this is a fact). According to science they should be all dead. Yes, three people died but how many people died of wrong food or too much food?

I have personally met Dr. Michael Werner, a german scientist who claims not to eat for 5 years. He started this experiment out of scientific curiosity but you don t want to take him serious, you don t want to examine people like him, like Manek, like Jani because if they don t lie your whole world view collapses.

I am sorry for my english, it is not my mothertongue, therefore I can t write as eloquent as I want to.

best regards

C.S.

The logic exercise is a bit misleading. The reason inedia is obviously impossible is the same reason perpetual motion is impossible. The reason there are no higher creatures (i.e. animals and their ilk) which run only on oxygen is that processing oxygen or sunlight for energy is far more limiting than simply eating other creatures (animals or plants) and digesting them for their stored energy.

A human being in a state of minimised energy usage can remain functional for a certain period of time, but the amount of energy burnt is still higher than what oxygen and sunlight could possibly provide (considering humans aren't built in a way that absorbs energy from oxygen and sunlight efficiently) -- that's why comatose patients need to be nurtured artificially.

There is no fundamental difference between human beings and animals. That other humans have the same "mind" or "conciousness" you claim they have and which arguably sets them apart from animals can not be scientifically validated because you can't describe it specifically enough to prove it's something humans have and animals don't. If you consider the "mind" the thing that lets us reason and think, then it's already a moot point as it is evident that animals can do that too. The only thing that makes the human mind stand out is its complexity.

I don't think these people are necessarily lying. It's quite likely they believe what they say (most evangelists of pseudo-sciences do). It's quite possible to eat without being aware of it (e.g. while sleepwalking) or forgetting that you did it.

As with almost any pseudo-science there are a couple of people who claim it works, but there is no credible, factual evidence that they are right. Science is not a matter of opinion. The evidence is support of the theory is weak and mostly non-replicable or of questionable origin.

Some of the people claiming it works say they get the energy their body needs from a spiritual source. Now, the problem with this claim is that it's as unscientific as it can get. Once you claim that something outside the physical realm can directly interact with it and transfer energy, science becomes inconsequent and all logic fails. If you can prove that the universe is completely illogical and inconsequent, you can prove anything.

Also, there is still the problem that our body doesn't simply need some abstract "energy" but rather specific chemical compounds. Most pseudo-sciences seem to be based on a misunderstanding of this kind of abstractions. Biochemistry doesn't lend itself to magic.

As for your reference to scientists conducting an experiment for 200 years -- science has developed A LOT over the last two hundred years, so claiming that the laboratory conditions of those times were adequate for what we would use in this field today is a bit optimistic. Science isn't about authority. Even if a world-known scientist would step up and say something is true, he'd still have to show conclusive and credible evidence that he is right. Instead, these people have only made empty claims and presented doubtful or inconclusive evidence (or turned down attempts at verifying their claims, such as the blood test for the person making the claim about their DNA being vastly different).

Scientists are as fallible as anybody else, they just happen to know their professional fields far better than most laymen making claims such as being able to live of sunshine and rainbows. Even a third world child could come up with a theory that can withstand critical analysis, even monkeys on typewriters could. The theory still has to be verifiable (this automatically excludes any theories not based on the idea that the universe is rational and follows the laws of cause and effect -- the very basis of science and sanity alike), though -- and that's the hard part and the reason most people who develop new (and successfully verified) scientific theories these days are people who spent years and decades in their particular field.

After all, when in need of a brain surgeon you wouldn't put high hopes in a car mechanic, shrink or software engineer either, would you? Even a gynaecologist would most likely not be qualified to perform that kind of operation.

The bad thing about science as compared to more simplistic attempts at explaining the world is that things can get awfully complicated. The good part is that, provided you have enough time on your hands, everyone can acquire the knowledge required to become a specialist in a field (plus a working knowledge in the basics of other fields). There is no inherent discrimination against "outsiders" even though religious nutjobs and pseudo-scientists like to claim it were so. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is that bit at the end about sleepwalking all about? --Gantlord 19:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Saying that they might think they aren't eating when they are actually sleep-eating? I'd like some references... — Omegatron 20:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how widespread the sleep-eating phenomenon is, but family members would testify that I did exactly that, at least once, as a child.

from the old jasmuheen article:

A German scientist has also now published a book saying that he has now not eaten for many years and shares how this is possible from a scientific view. Zinaida Baranova a Russian woman also supports this reality and has been without food and fluid for more than 5 years and Prahlad Jani in India has been food and fluid free for 68 years. Hira Ratan Manek has also stepped forward to share about feeding from micro food or solar energy and has done extensive medical and scientific testing. Work has begun with Jasmuheen and her political connections on introducing this alternate feeding source into third world countries.

Some other people we might research for inclusion here. — Omegatron 01:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph describing Ellen Greves is still a contentious one. Recently, someone tried to end the paragraph differently, seeing what is obviously POV in the subject of the article's favor (as it usually is). Ending the paragraph with Greve's quote, her "challenge" (as it says) is blatent POV. We should say "It's unclear who these people are, if they exist." (removed unsourced contentious material per policy). People need food to survive, you don't need a kindergarten education to know that. But even if we can't say, "if they exist," we should at least say, "It's unclear who these 6,000 people are." We are giving undue weight to Greve's claims. (removed unsourced contentious material per policy). We can't come out and say it, but we can state the facts as they are, and give majority weight to majority opinion, going along with wikipedia guidelines. And the NPOV tutorial does say that we shouldn't avoid objective facts. Of course, that humans need to eat food is an objective fact, but, regardless, it is certainly an objective fact that it's unclear who these 6,000 people are (that could, unlike her, live without food). I'm putting up the simple and objective sentence, "It's unclear who these 6,000 people are."Maprov

The sentence is still pointless and personal speculation. Stop putting it in, please. — Omegatron 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well something must be put there to balance the POV of ending the sentence there. I know you've said in the past that her own words are a point against her. I think you make the mistake of thinking most people are as smart as you. Quite to the contrary, many people pay $2,000 a head to sit through her seminars. And at least three people so far have taken her very seriously. Many people will first hear about Ellen Greves with this article. How many other people will take her very seriously?

Regardless, of course I maintain that my edit was in line with wikipedia guidlines. It is an objective fact. It's not personal speculation. No one has every said that 6,000 people live on air except her. Who are these people? To say the least, that's unclear. The weight in the parts of this article addressing Greves should be against her, if anything, in line with the scientific community.Matt

I second Maprov. Leaving it the way it is slants it her way.Ljstg

It's not our job to protect stupid people from her. It's our job to document her in a neutral way.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you can't handle that, don't edit here.

By the way, welcome to Wikipedia, Ljstg. I see that you just joined on the 9th, and your first edit was to replace the comment that Maprov keeps replacing. — Omegatron 16:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well he was in the WP Rational Skepticism. Maybe he just understood that it is an objective fact. To say the least, it's unclear who these 6,000 people are. If you're not disputing that, why don't you think it should be allowed in? We are allowed to use any objective facts we want. That's in the NPOV tutorial. Plus, due weight should be given to the skeptical view, as it is the view of most people in this case.Maprov 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure it's just coincidence that he left the site and asked that his user page be deleted with the same {{deletebecause|I have left wikipedia.}} as Maprovonsha172's {{deletebecause|I've left the site.}}, after only 22 edits, some of which include

• creating a new userbox
• knowledge of WikiProject template policy
• giving you an "exceptional newcomer" award

He sure learns fast... — Omegatron 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Must be. I imagine a lot of people say things like "I've left wikipedia." I don't know how to check, but why don't you figure out the time he posted that. If it's before you posted your first implication of him, that shows how much of a coincidence it is. I can see how you'd make the mistake, but then again, my friends Taxwoman and Londoneye were both banned for suspicion of sockpuppetry and they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Seems like a good way to attack your enemies...Maybe Ljtsg will come forward and leave one of us a mesage to clear the air. Regardless, you still haven't addressed my claims that the sentence in question is an objective fact, and that due weight should go to the skeptical side in this case as it is the majority viewpoint. I'm reverting it.Maprov 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Accusing other users of being sockpuppets does little to back up your argument. WP:NPOV does indeed state that the majority opinion should be given the most weight and not having a sentence after the quote implies that 6,000 people really have lived on air - hardly the opinion of most experts. Hitchhiker89^talk 17:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't accuse; merely pointed out discrepancies.
• Sockpuppets aren't illegal.
• Using a sockpuppet to say the same thing over again does little to back up your argument (or credibility).
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
• Not qualifying her statement with personal speculation implies that 6,000 people are currently living without food? That's absurd.
  • "There have been no verified cases of this occurring indefinitely to date."
  • "As breatharians have seldom submitted themselves to medical testing, there is currently little evidence to support their claims."
  • "However, there is no scientifically confirmed evidence of this."

How many times do we have to say it? — Omegatron 19:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I really don't care who is or isn't a sockpuppet of anyone else. By my previous comment I meant that arguing about it was pointless, so this will be my last mention of the issue (famous last words...)
• "Not qualifying her statement with personal speculation implies that 6,000 people are currently living without food? That's absurd." - Saying that there is no proof that 6,000 people live off air is neither personal speculation nor absurd. And yes, failing to point out this lack of evidence implies that the statement is true.
• "How many times do we have to say it?" - Every time that not saying it would imply the opposite.

Hitchhiker89^talk 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My editing here was to clarify what was made unclear. Earlier, before Omegatron's edit, it looked like it was her claim. Afterwards it looked like Omegatron was confirming her belief. I reinstated that it was her belief. That preserves a NPOV.

Qualifiers must be used when editors write their own words, or when the quotes they are citing cannot be left standing alone, so as to be misleading. (Deceivers must not be allowed to preach unopposed.)

The article should not be a soapbox for either the editors or the persons being quoted. It is the editor's job to neutralize (= to create NPOV by neutering or castrating strongly one-sided or POV statements) obviously undocumented or absurd statements in quotes, and that may even include pointing out their absurdity. This is standard Wikipedia policy, where majority and scientific viewpoints are given greater weight than absurd or minority viewpoints. -- Fyslee 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And yes, failing to point out this lack of evidence implies that the statement is true.

No it doesn't. It reports on what she said to defend herself. It doesn't imply anything about the validity of that defense. You can't just say that she doesn't have any followers without a reference of who thinks it.

That's a straw man argument. It's not just about "any followers," but about followers who are actually living (and still alive) without food for prolonged periods of time. (I'd accept 60 days or more with undiminished vigor and still going strong.) Where are the 6,000 people who are doing this under controlled conditions (the only way to be sure they are doing it - or exist - at all), or the 6,000 bodies of those who tried and died? (In which case (removed unsourced contentious material per policy).) -- Fyslee 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Um... (removed unsourced contentious material per policy). But we can't say that without something verifiable and neutral to back it up. — Omegatron 23:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that's only for the talk page, not the article.....;.) -- Fyslee 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The lack of evidence for inedia is already clearly stated several times in the article. Drawing conclusions from that evidence is (borderline) original research. We should present the evidence and the conclusions that others have come to, and state who those others are.

This is acceptable to me. Congratulations! -- Fyslee 23:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*Phew!* Now we cross our fingers and wait for everyone else to see it... — Omegatron 23:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Earlier, before Omegatron's edit, it looked like it was her claim.

It could be read that way, I guess. How is the current wording? The semicolon and "saying that" meant the same thing to me. — Omegatron 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the wording that little addition as it is now. However, I am going to change a certain paragraph break. Leaving the sentence, “I asked for fresh air. Seventy percent of my nutrients come from fresh air. I couldn’t even breathe,” she said," at the end of the paragraph, seems to give it some validity. The next sentence, "On the third day the test moved to a mountainside retreat where she could get plenty of fresh air and live happily," explains this previous sentence away, and yet they're seperated by a paragraph break. They plainly go together. A better break would be from the sentence, "...Dr. Berris Wink, president of the Queensland branch of the Australian Medical Association, urged her to stop the test," to, "According to the doctor..."Maprov 22:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Now can we move on to Wiley Brooks? :-) — Omegatron 23:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. What do you want to say about him?Maprov 03:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he apparently used the word breatharian first, and the non-eating thing, too. And wasn't he the one (removed unsourced contentious material per policy) while staying at a hotel for a conference? Now he says it's not about not eating.  :-) — Omegatron 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting! Enlighten us. I don't know much at all about Breatharianism's history. That angle should be part of the article. Just write your proposed contribution here. -- Fyslee 18:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Back to Wiley Brooks. He heads up the Breatharian Institute of America in Santa Cruz, California. Brooks claims priority to Breatharianism over Jasmuheen, having called himself a Breatharian for more than 20 years. He now finds himself upstaged by Jasmuheen, but is quick to defend her. [10]
• Breatharians believe they are sustained by Pranic light, an ancient spiritual belief in the light of God which is found across the universe and inside everyone. But the organisation has been dogged by scandal. In 1983, most of the leadership of the cult in California resigned when Wiley Brooks, its 47-year-old leader, who claimed not to have eaten for 19 years, (removed unsourced contentious material per policy) [11]
• Wiley has been a Breatharian for some 30 years and has been giving seminars and teaching his intrinsically learned philosophy for over 20 of those years. A Breatharian is a person who can, under the correct conditions, live with or without eating food. [12]
• You see, I first heard about this particular religious health cult around 1989, thanks to the Church of the SubGenius and the Rev Ivan Stang. According to Stang, the Breatharians suffered a bit of a setback in the 80s when Wiley Brooks was discovered (removed unsourced contentious material per policy). In interviews, Jasmuheen seems to like to clarify matters: she isn't claiming that she doesn't eat or drink anything. No, she's claiming that if she were to stop eating and drinking, she wouldn't die. [13]

There's more info available on those sites. — Omegatron 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add a section on his $200,000.00 introductory course. If nothing else, it is quite amusing that he thinks he can find applicants.70.21.216.114 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a couple quotes from the doctor that supervised Ellen Greves test. They're quite releveant and are objective facts (that he said them), whether you agree with him and me or not. I'll add a link as well. Maprov

Good. — Omegatron 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any specific POV issues that need to be sorted out before the NPOV template can be removed? If so, address them below. If no one comes forward, I'll remove the template in a few days.Maprov

I removed it. — Omegatron 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the various concepts are close enough to be in the same article, but should be kept separate. The three deaths should be under Jasmuheen's heading, since they are directly related to her.

The other cases should be presented separately, under the more general term "inedia", which has been legend for much much longer. Here are some more from history:

1. Judah Mehler, Grand Rabbi, 1660-1751, ate and drank sparingly one day a week (Ripley's Believe It or Not).

This is not inedia. I guess it can be done, depending on your definition of "sparingly".--Damifb 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1. In the 19th century Marie Frutner, a Bavarian girl, lived on water without food for 40 years (Hilton Hotema of Health Research).
2. Teresa Avila, a Bavarian peasant, born 1898, took no food or water and did not sleep since 1926 (described by "Aberee 1960").
3. Caribala Dassi lived for 40 years without taking any food or water (India's Message, 1932).
4. Yand Mel, age 20, did not eat for nine years (Dr. T.Y. Gan, according to Jones H. B. et al, Am. J. Cancer, 40:243-50, 1940).
5. Therese Neumann, a German nun, who passed away in 1952, did not eat for 40 years, no food, no water.
6. Danalak Shumi of Marcara, India, age 18, for over one year took no food or water (the Bombay Press August 1953).
7. Balayogini Sarasvati of Amma, India, lived on water only for a period of more than three years (Rosicrucian Digest, June 1959)
8. A woman named Giri Bala of Bahar, West Bengal took no food nor fluid since she was 12 (described by Paramhansa Yogananda, in his book "Autobiography of a Yogi") — Omegatron 20:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there is a real difference between Breatharian beliefs and Inedian beliefs? I thought the terms were interchangeable, but if they have different histories, they can of course be described, even if it is most practical to have them in the same article. -- Fyslee 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there's a difference between the Breatharians, who are nourished by Prana, and the Roman Catholic saints, who live for years without any food but the eucharist, and the Buddhist monks or whoever. They're related beliefs, of course, but from completely different people from completely different time periods who believed different things about them. — Omegatron 21:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you have been editing my capitalizations. Maybe I've misunderstood something, but I was under the impression that they were proper names/titles, like Baptist, Democrat, etc., ie the names for a group, hence should be capitalized. Please help me understand this matter. I've lived in Denmark for the last 23 years, so my once perfect American English is somewhat screwed up now.....;-) -- Fyslee 21:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Breatharianism is a coined proper name, but inedia is just a general word for living without eating. Breatharianism is a specific type of inedia. — Omegatron 21:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what gives here? By grouping similar subjects together, I thought I was making the article more systematic, rather than the haphazard appearance it had. Maybe you have other plans. Please explain. I'm not trying to waste our time here. -- Fyslee 21:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep it systemic, too. The deaths are related specifically to Jasmuheen, for instance. — Omegatron 21:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no qualm with the content on this site. I just stumbled upon it from "fakir." But I hate to see misunderstanding of logical syllogisms. Someone has misunderstood the implications of a valid syllogism. The opponent can easily retort that you have a premise wrong -- for instance that they believe that "all animals must eat, except human breatharians." No syllogism can solve this because it isn't a logic problem, but rather an empirical problem. If science relied upon syllogisms scientific advancement would come to a stand still, as empirical studies would be replaced with conventional assumptions as premises.Your logic is immaculate. But this isn't actually relavant to the discussion. Hope this disn't hurt anyone's feelings. Just wanted to clarify about the logic. Chris 15:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, I think, but would point out that the premise is probably closer to "Humans don't need to eat."MaxMangel 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he's talking about this talk page (#use of 'of course').

I don't see it, but if Maprov has snuck his "logical deduction" into the article (again), it needs to be removed. — Omegatron 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well anyway, you get the point. And thanks for taking it well. I meant no disrespect.

You don't understand the use of logic in science. Science cannot rely upon simple syllogisms. Syllogisms are theoretical devises in logic only. Science is empirical. You need to grasp the difference. For instance, a scientist could not crunch the data "All crows are black" into a syllogism, for it is impossible to observe all crows. Rather science deals entirely in cases, not in generalizations about "all possible instances." If they did, science would perish into dogmatism such as in the pre-Rennaissance. No one need feel defensive. This is just a fact of modern science. Please leave the use of logic to those more qualified to understand its implications, e.g. theoretical mathematics and computer applications. NEti^talk 22:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Who are you talking to? I don't see anyone disagreeing with you.
2. You're in Esperanza and you're saying "don't talk about things you don't understand. leave it to qualified experts"? — Omegatron 23:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I see now you're right. Those quotes about the syllogism are very old. My apologies. NEti^talk 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fellows, I don´t think we should include ten-day tests under this article. It is simply irrelevant to the matter, and not proof of anything. I myself had spent more than a week without eating (only drinking water), of course, loosing many kilos in the process. Anyone can do it for a few 4-5 days with a little will. --Damifb 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"...skeptics can also point to somnambulism as an alternative explanation for this purported phenomenon"

Sleepwalking is not an alternative explanation for living without food, since sleeping is not the same as eating. Therefore, unless someone objects, I will delete this section of the article shortly. David 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete it. It obviously refers to the act of eating while sleeping, thus not being aware of it.

--Damifb 20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the "another explanation" section to clarify why somnambulism is another explanation. It is not sleepwalking itself that is the explanation, but sleepeating. David 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned previously: There is a German scientist who's experience with living on light are published in a book book

Actually his book is not only about his own experience when he was object of a scientific study, but it contains also accounts of several other people who underwent the 21-day process proposed by Jasmuheen.

I'll try to get more information about it. I have the impression that it would be useful to add this. Unluckily I'm not yet very used to wikipedia editing, but I'll do my best.

Okko7 22:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wiley Brooks' Breatharian Institute of America charges $10,000,000 US (minimum) to learn how to live without food."

Though I don't know what they charge, I seriously doubt the 10 million dollar figure is accurate.

Pitchclerk 02:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Met Brooks himself in Sturgis, SD this past week and the $10 million figure is the one he is quoting. A more accurate question is does he have any takers at this price?

Dinny 65.101.219.177 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The section under "Another explanation" contained the following text: "an alternative explanation for the reported phenomenon." Previously, it read: "an alternative explanation for this purported phenomenon." Both seem fairly POV to me. Using google's define, I get that a "phenomenon" is "any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning; a remarkable development". Skeptics would want to modify away from that, believers would want to embrace it. The modifiers used show that conflict:

• reported - "made known or told about; especially presented in a formal account" (see also: words to avoid: report).
• purported - "putative, commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds". (see also: no neutrality problem with purported).

I am changing this, for the moment, to reflect that inedia may or may not be "true" (NPOV) to include "purported". To avoid possible bias with "phenomenon" to "ability". Mdbrownmsw 13:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why the Category:African cuisine tag was removed? It seems clear to me that this is a culinary trend in Africa. Can you produce some evidence to the contrary? In the future, I would appreciate if you discussed changes like these on the talk page first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.30.14 (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain what Category:African cuisine has to do with Inedia? Have you read the article? Some Inedia gurus eat Big Macs and junk food. Others don't eat at all. Where is the African Cuisine in that? Dr.K. (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to censor this information? Breatharianism began in Africa. All the most successful Breatharians learned from the West African experts (West Africans are considered the authority). It is considered a West African culinary tradition dating back thousands of years. This information is freely available elsewhere on the Web; why shouldn't it be on Wikipedia? 24.151.30.14 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And by the way the onus is on you to produce the evidence. Not the other way around. Dr.K. (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dr. K, but there is definitely truth to what the person above you is saying. He doesn't have his facts completely correct, but it is right for the most part. He's most likely citing information from the top of his head. In any case, "innocent until proven guilty" holds very true in this case. In fact, I think it's rather frightful that as a doctor you would prevent this sort of information from spreading so that more can understand the ways of culinary arts in Western Africa. Don't you want people to be free of bitter-tasting ignorance? One would hope so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.88.3 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your tone but rest assured I am not trying to censor anything. Can you please provide a citation about your claim? Don't forget here we are not talking about where Breatharianism began but about African cuisine meaning food. So if you don't mind please provide a reliable citation about the connection between African Cuisine, Inedia, Breatharianism etc, otherwise this category cannot stay. If you think his facts are correct then there would be no problem to provide a reliable citation. Please do not resort to innuendo and other methods to push uncited POV. Without citations this cannot stay. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In your own words: He doesn't have his facts completely correct, but it is right for the most part. He's most likely citing information from the top of his head. How can you then tell me: In fact, I think it's rather frightful that as a doctor you would prevent this sort of information from spreading so that more can understand the ways of culinary arts in Western Africa. What is so frightful about trying to prevent someone citing "information from the top of his head" from putting it into Wikipedia, especially since you admit he hasn't gor his facts straight? My degree has nothing to do with this. So please refrain from ridiculous comments like this. Dr.K. (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is this: "Is inedia African cuisine?" The argument so far seems to revolve around whether or not inedia is African. A quick sanity check: inedia is "the alleged ability to live without food" which is clearly not "a specific set of cooking traditions and practices". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mdsummermsw. That category insertion was really nonsensical. If you've been around long enough you can understand from the arguments used that the replies were not even remotely serious. Instead of providing citations or using common logic they started with "censorship" mentioning my degree etc. You know right then and there that they are not serious editors. Dr.K. (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate skepticism section. Information about Jasmuheen and her followers should remain in her own section. It's much more clear and easier to follow that way. (Although I can understand that enthusiasts might want it to be difficult to follow...) — Omegatron 14:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Twenty-five million dollars sounds awfully much to join the American Breatharian Club or whatever it's called. Can that be right?--JO 24 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. That's what his website says: [14] -kotra (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this can't be real. The language used in the section about Wiley Brooks is so ridiculous and humours that I think it has to be some kind of joke or hoax. I wouldn't be suspired if James Randi himself was behind it, he does do those sort of things to show how stupid certain people are (see Project Alpha). I mean 25 million dollars to live on air, "base frequency" big macs, the Fifth Dimension and "Earth Prime", this has to be a satire. --Hibernian (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does sound like satire... but then again, all he needs is one rich idiot, and he's set. -kotra (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem is we can't know if its a joke 89.249.0.170 (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you laugh? 124.171.176.108 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page mention Ram Bahadur Bomjon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.172.233 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In this section is states that there is no evidence to support the Breatharinisms claims. What about Prahlad Jani, is it not proven that he went without food or water for 10 days under strict observation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.104.115 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not eating for 10 days is not evidence that such a practice is sustainable. 124.171.176.108 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted a hagiographical account based on a single reference by Daily Mail because it selectively quoted comments like: A neurophysician says Jani’s survival is miraculous. etc. without also mentioning the criticism by the Indian Rationalist Association which criticisises the whole operation as a probable fraud. The journalists comments were also cherry-picked without adding his last comment: After all, wouldn’t life be boring if everything was rational? which indicates his tongue-in-cheek view of the whole affair. The hospital investigation by the Indian authorities is not a scientific study and the quality of the conclusions of these scientists and officials as reported in a tabloid British newspaper cannot be taken to be academically valid. After these gentlemen publish their findings in a scientific journal then maybe we can take them seriously. And let us not forget. What we are trying here to do is write an encyclopedia. Extraordinary claims of this type need extraordinary proof. We cannot take seriously a few fawning comments by a couple of scientists and military officials without knowing the quality controls of their study and without them being peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal and not in a British tabloid. Otherwise we try to create smoke and mirrors for our readers here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I partially agree with the above and see your point. However, my opinion is that too much weight is given to the view of Indian Rationalist Association, which is based solely on guesses and speculations so far. Their view is cherry-picked to provide a negative and grossly skeptic conclusion of the whole story. Almost no room is left for good faith and a possibility of a doubt. The article indicates the Indian Rationalist Association used some kind of gas to force the vomiting effect on another claimant. I doubt the presence of their representatives would be welcomed by the current claimant and his supporters in view of his own belief that his abilities are a 'divine gift', as the Indian Rationalist Association's approach is most likely seen as intolerant and blasphemous from a point of view of a sadhu. NazarK (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your fast reply. I haven't checked the rest of the section to see how the Rationalist Association is covered and if indeed it is given too much undue weight. I see your point for a balanced perspective so if you have a reliable source you can add information that would criticise the Rationalist organisation and its methods. Your final comment about how unwelcome the rationalists would be by the claimant and his supporters, shows how difficult it is to conduct a proper scientific investigation when such mistrust and strong beliefs are held by the opposing sides. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This statement by user Dr.K-

What we are trying here to do is write an encyclopedia. Extraordinary claims of this type need extraordinary proof. We cannot take seriously a few fawning comments by a couple of scientists and military officials without knowing the quality controls of their study and without them being peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal and not in a British tabloid. Otherwise we try to create smoke and mirrors for our readers here.

-begs comment: we are not here to arbitrate truth - only to document. Our job is not tell the reader what to think, but to provide the tools for apprehension. That said, we can avoid ascribing confabulated creditability to incredible claims by clearly stating that the nature of what we relay is as reported and not as observed. Extraordinary claims need context contrived to provide an unobstructed view for comprehensive apprehension by the reader - and nothing more. The measures taken by those such as the Indian Rationalist Association speak for themselves; a mention of those measures in the article before indicating the rejection of IRA participation in the study may be appropriate, so long as it is not through context drawing a conclusion that does not come from a quality cited source - no mater how logical or reasonable a conclusion. Frankly, I find the claims unscrupulous and intellectually repulsive; my only recourse is to find quality references and apply them in the article in a way that accurately represents their stature and proportion amongst all other applicable references of equal stature.Mavigogun (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that you did not take my comments about extrarordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof in the proper context. What I was referring to was comments like: A neurophysician says Jani’s survival is miraculous which at face value appear to confer scientific approval on an alleged miracle by Prahlad Jani. Such commentary if reported without additional context may mislead the reader. So if we want to write that this person performed miracles we must use scientific sources. The personal opinions of a few scientists may or may not be notable depending on many other factors such as the source reporting their opinion, the credibility and research credentials of the expert etc. As an encyclopedia we don't have to report every comment made about a person without considering if it is reliable enough to be included here. I agree with the rest of your comments regarding the quality of the sources. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotes like this of Dr. Urman Dhruv "...Jani's body - which seems to have undergone some type of genetic transformation" that do not give specific indicators of genetic transformation, or the nature of (if any) gene testing undertaken, may speak directly to the doctor's credibility- if such information wasn't omitted by the reporting body. Dr. Urman Dhruv and his ilk may lack all credibility - and still be entirely topical and appropriate for inclusion in the article. Reporting that a scientist characterized something as a miracle speaks directly to the credibility of the scientist- I would most definitely want to see such a statement accompany any other statement by that same. Statements that include assertions by unnamed third parties my also be useful self testament - of course, context for the inclusion is the deciding factor. Discretion in parsing the utility of referenced material is necessary, without doubt- I assert only that we not edit from a position of argument (position advocacy) - but reporting on said positions, and that context is provided in the form of cited references directly related to the article and not synthesized by referring to related 'facts'. As written, the article tone is definitely that of debunking fraud.Mavigogun (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I liked the last edits of Mavigogun. They leave it up to the reader to decide what to think, while providing enough high quality information. The fragments he edited really had a touch of a 'rationalistic fanaticism', which is of no good to persuade anyone of even slightly different view. Now the article became much more enjoyable to read and less offensive towards those of an alternative view... Personally I absolutely do agree that there's a lot of frauds and unsubstantiated beliefs about the subject of breatharianism. But the door should be left open for a possibility of alternative explanations and undiscovered phenomena. There may be even an unnoticed 'miracle' which is advocated by fraudulent and made up theories. The true 'miracle' may be behind these advocates and theories :) Yet something for us to understand with the time. Thanks... NazarK (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Some blood parameters during his 2003 tests are published here: [15], they show signs of dehydratation. 109.43.248.4 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the info from that wiki can be totally trusted. Just started reading the article there and found the following introductory statement: "Prahlad Jani ...... is an Indian fakir and Jainism follower from Gujarat." However, it's been explicitly stated in all available references that he is a follower and life-long devotee of Amba, which has nothing to do with Jainism... The above probably shows some blatant lack of elementary subject knowledge by the authors there... Otherwise, great job on their side. Always good to have more info available... haha.. NazarK (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's an open wiki with seven users and 21 articles. It's not a reliable source and we shouldn't be using it directly for biography information. If they specify a second-hand source which is reliable, though, we can reference that. --McGeddon (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)