Have you heard of Solarhealing!

[patelvipulk]

Last  September , I heard an Audio lecture by Hira Ratan Manek ( HRM)  and I got so intruiged by what he was saying, I hosted him in New Jersey for a series of free lectures in November.. For the three days he was with me, I did not see him eating any solid food and the verified the same with many others who hosted him in various parts of US.

His method of gazing sun in the safe period of sunrise and sunset ( with UV index below 2) and his reasoning behind it seemed very convinving and I have started doing it.. ( Eventhought it has been thought by medical science that it may be unsafe).....
I have reached a  sungazing time of 10 minues now with no negative effects. I past three months, I have came across thousands who have been practising this method ( www.solarheaing.com) including a few medical doctors on various discusssion forums on yahoo and few other sites..

If anyone is intersted, I can write more and post more links here.  The method seems to help big time with mental anxietly and fear.. Some people are also reporting phyisical benifits and many reporting spiritual upliftment..


It is o.k. for anyone not to beleive also and all views are welcome..

Vipul..
Vipul..

[Tom]

The address did not work for me as listed; here it is to click on: http://www.solarhealing.com/

Getting energy from sunlight makes sense to me. Converting it to replace solid food is going to take a bit more explaining, and what about water?

[Tyciol]

The site never makes claims it can totally replace food, and he says to stop after a while, he has all his bases covered so no one sues him.

Thanks for fixing the link, it was indeed missing an 'l' (L), although I'd already seen it before, it was posted before on one of these healing forums... or maybe energy body (in which case you'll never find it, too many people post dumb wastes of posts on there).

[patelvipulk]

From what I saw, he did a complete fast just on water and sunlight for 211 days  first and then another one for 411 days ( in a raw)  in India and then 130 days in US. When I spend time with him, he took only liquid food ( that is also only if someone insisted-- an Indian custom to welcome guest and offer something).

About getting sued, he does not charge any money to anyone and goes whereever or whenever someone invites him and sometiems gives five lectures in a day..

Vipul...

[Tom]

It isn't like I haven't heard of several different approaches to not eating solid food and to only drinking water. My point is just that I don't understand how any of them work. Living bodies must constantly grow or they will die, and this requires raw materials as well as energy.

[patelvipulk]

SO DO I or for that fact HRM does not understand it either.. According to him, he studied many ancient spiritual practices form many cultures  which led to this discovery..
He is  precribing a mthod and showing the verifyable  results .. He is also claiming that anyone can practice it and get the results and from what I see from Yahoo and other groups that many many people are reporting positve results..

About why it happens, he is asking medical doctors and researchers to take interst into this so that proper scientific studies are carried and theories are established. There are many sungazers who are claiming that they are close to reaching the non-eating stage..
I can send post more info with various links on internet on the subject if someone is interested..

Vipul..

[Tom]

I'm not just being cheap (groceries are right up there with rent as far as expenses). Actually, the thing about food and proper nutrition doesn't make sense to me either. The way some people have eaten for decades at a time, they should be dead by now.

[Frank]

Nourishment is a concept, along with myriads of others we engage in within this physical reality. I mean, the whole idea of "physical realm" is a concept, which is dependent upon state. And within that overall umbrella, we create many, many sub-concepts that we play with for the purposes of our experience.

The concept of nourishment, these days, has an incredible number of belief constructs attached to it. There are enormous numbers of "health" magazines devoted to the topic of diet, together with a veritable army of "experts". Who actually know very little, but there is no telling them that of course. :)

Many of these "experts" view the physical body as a kind of separate entity that needs "feeding" with certain "nutrients" which can only be derived from what they see as a "balanced diet". Which sounds good in theory, but in practice, everyone's idea of a balanced diet is different.

In Truth, the body is infinitely adaptable. If you are of the belief that you can exist on liquids and sunlight, if that is what you truly believe, then you will create that reality. For each of us creates our own reality, and our physical body is an expression of that. Our body is not some separate entity. It's a physical manifestation of our own psyche.

The physical body actually "runs" on the subjective energy it receives through consciousness. In theory, therefore, there is no actual need to consume conventional food at all. But in setting up this physical-life system, we have chosen, inter alia, to engage in the concept of nourishment. Therefore, it is normal to view "food" as a requirement. But it is by no means necessary.        

Yours,
Frank

[Tom]

Do you mean that people do not die because of the various types of causes that a medical examiner can determine, but that they die of improper thinking which is then reflected into physical experience?

[karnautrahl]

f you are of the belief that you can exist on liquids and sunlight, if that is what you truly believe, then you will create that reality.

For me Frank that is a little etheric you know (to me at least) .  I guess I like more solid practicality in ideas. Especially when the most "etheric" thing I can do is make heat/tingles in my spine LOL.

[Frank]

Tom:

An interesting question that throws up all manner of answers.

A medical examiner has been trained to determine the "cause of death" of a physical body along certain lines of objective reasoning. The fact that the "deceased" has chosen to enter into such an engagement is not entertained in the typical medical examiner's portfolio. Unless, it is a death that is to do with an obvious suicide. Where it is determined that a person "chose" to "end" their physical life (for whatever reason).

In conventional terms, all other deaths are recorded as coming about either through "accident", or "misadventure", or through "natural causes". It is, however, a fact that every death comes about as a choice, by the deceased in question. But this avenue of approach is not yet accepted by the public at large.

People do not die of improper thinking. Improper thinking is merely a value judgement that others might impose upon someone else's physical experience. But a person's beliefs are reflected into their physical experience, yes. And the physical manifestation of those beliefs are reflected in a multiplicity of terms; physical-body death being one of them, of course.

Yours,
Frank

[patelvipulk]

I do not know much about medical science as my expereise is in optics and semiconductors..
How ever one thing I have observed with myself..
Three years ago I got attacted to spirituality and dstarted doing meditations.. With time, my mind calm down and fear and anxieity disappeared.. With that , my food intake and sleep also went down.
It is my personal beleif that if mind calms down, the body requires much less energy to sustain itself..

Vipul..

[Quantitativefool]

I did a water and sunlight fast for about 4 days and was not hungry at the end of it, I know its a short time but I really felt normal and can't see of any physical decline. Just my input.

[Tom]

Why didn't you choose to keep going longer to see what would happen, then, given that it was working for you?

[Antranik]

Seems like everything depends on how solid your faith/belief is in anything that creates your world.

I have gone on two water fasts for 5 days and plan to increase the number of days everytime I fast so that I get used to any of the physical/mental challenges.  I've read that with proper training you can fast up to 40 days.  So now, with the proper mind-set, in other words, with the complete faith and confidence, I can fast for over 40 days if I believed in myself.

Then there's things like, well, when you go on a fast, you not only lose a LOT of mass, but can you go to the gym as usual and build up your muscles?  See the belief system is instilled in me that after I work out my body needs FOOD for muscle recovery and repair.  Now how can I go on a water-fast, continue weight-training and actually keep building muscle-mass.

If I had the absolute 100% conviction that my physical body will keep on growing/building itself while on a fast, will it?

It should if what Frank is saying is true.  I believe what he is saying, it is only when you apply this idea to every facet of the things you encounter everyday where the real challenges against your beliefs begin.  Is this making sense?

[patelvipulk]

I have fasted for 9 days on just water two times in my life( before I came to know aboout sungazing).. both time during a spiritual practise of chanting  gayatri mantra for 24,000 times during the nine day period.
I have started practising sungazing from last November ( increasing 10 sec every time I sungaze) I am at 10 minutes of sungazing now..
I will let things happen naturallly with no goals.

Vipul..

[karnautrahl]

The human body apparently can last between 3 and 6 weeks without food and still survive-as long as there is some water intake.  The consequences increase as the time goes on. So someone training up to 40 days doesn't surprise me, if they are slowing their metabolic rate down sufficiently etc then yes-deliberate training could take you to 6 weeks + though I don't think you'd be too healthy at the end.

[Quantitativefool]

I stopped because I'm only 16 and parents were rather perplexed, plus I had alot of stuff to do in the following week.

-Stu

[Antranik]

The human body apparently can last between 3 and 6 weeks without food and still survive-as long as there is some water intake.  The consequences increase as the time goes on. So someone training up to 40 days doesn't surprise me, if they are slowing their metabolic rate down sufficiently etc then yes-deliberate training could take you to 6 weeks + though I don't think you'd be too healthy at the end.

If we think it's unhealthy, then it sure as heaven will be unhealthy indeed, right?  

[patelvipulk]

To me, living on sunlight is not important.. To me the  physical, mental and spiritual benifits that one gets from the process of sungazing are very important..

And the medical science does not know it well. jUst last week, there was study published by the chairman of American cancer society ( it was on CNN  and many other news) that the new study suggests that exposure to sunlight can  help with cancer cure..

Vipul..

[patapouf]

As a matter of fact patelvipulk, you can find such explanation in Dr Johanna Budwig's book in relation with flax oil (this book is really easy to read by the way; it is around 50 pages!). There is a chapter ''The Fats Syndrome and Photons as Solar Energy''.

She state:
     
       ''Electron-rich food, electron-rich highly unsaturated oils, natural flavorings from herbs and spices, from fruits which are rich in aroma and natural dyes from the color of the sunlight's photons-- these all help the absorption, storage and utilization of the sun's energy.''

There is also another chapter: ''Solar Energy Against Cancer''.

I have the book but I have to read it; my mother's boyfriend received the book last Friday and he is the one who wants to find out a good cure against cancer (since chemotherapy failed) and I'm trying to help him on that issue.

[Tyciol]

I don't believe in all that stuff, but the sun is beautiful, so it would be nice to look at it without getting your pupils killed. A sunset is rare to watch these days, the last time I saw one I was in a car.

Muscles will die if you stop fueling them, yeah. Muscles aren't as important as being thin though.

[patelvipulk]

this method recommends looking at Sun directly during the first hour of sunrise and last hour of sunset. During this period, the UV index is below 2.
I have been sungazing ( started with 10 sec and incresed gazing time by 10 sec. every time I sungazed). I have reached a gazing time of 10 minutes and have not seen any damage to the eyes. In fact, my eyes get less tired now.

There is a nice article by Prof. Jon Andrews discussing why it is safe to sungaze during htis time ( in refences to a common beleif that Galileo's vision was lost at an older age due to direct vieiing of sun throught a  telescope))


http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/vision/Galileo.html


Naked-eye solar hazards
So, if Galileo didn't go blind from observing the Sun, why are so many people worried about looking at the Sun? Well, as Mulder mentioned above, people do sometimes suffer eye damage at solar eclipses. And it's also true that a few early obsevers did suffer some minor eye injury from looking at the Sun under unsafe conditions: Isaac Newton seems to have suffered a very small scotoma by looking at the Sun's reflection in a mirror when it was high in the sky; and Thomas Harriot, who discovered sunspots independently, once observed the Sun near noon, and reported that ``My sight was after dim for an houre.'' John Greaves reported afterimages looking like ``a company of crows'' for ``some days'' after making solar observations directly through a telescope.

Still, it's rare to hear of anyone suffering eye damage from just looking at the Sun under normal conditions. Why?

First of all, you need to understand what kind of damage sunlight can inflict on eyes. Most people suppose you will ``burn'' your eyes by looking at the Sun. This notion is refuted in the technical paper

T. J. White, M. A. Mainster, P. W. Wilson, and J. H. Tips
Chorioretinal temperature increases from solar observation
Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 33, 1-17 (1971)

in which the authors state that


Direct thermal damage to living tissues is generally associated with temperature increases of 10-25°C. . . . These thresholds are substantially higher than the 4°C temperature rise computed for an unassisted solar observation with a 3 mm pupil diameter and [zenith] observation angle. Since 90% of this temperature rise occurs in the first 300 msec of an observation, accidental solar observation on a clear day would be a significant hazard if a 4°C temperature increase were capable of producing a chorioretinal lesion. However, with normal pupil adaptation, the only effect of unaided solar observations, even several seconds in length, is a transient afterimage. Thus, it is clear that the 4°C temperature rise can be safely tolerated. . . . Solar observations with a dilated pupil may result in chorioretinal temperature increases substantially greater . . . . Unaided, solar eclipse observations also produce smaller temperature increases . . . . However, since the iris may be adapted to a larger pupil diameter during eclipse conditions than during unobscured conditions, . . . the eclipse observation would then be more hazardous than an unobscured observation. . . .
So, thermal damage (not really a ``burn'') is possible under conditions of a partial eclipse, when only a little of the Sun is exposed, and the pupil opens up to adapt to the low overall light level; but it is unlikely in normal daytime conditions.

In agreement with this calculation, there are published instances of people staring at the Sun, even high in the sky, without harm. As an example, I cite the first-hand account of

G. Lowe
Bold experiments in physiological optics
Meteorological Magazine 59, 213 (1924)

who wrote:

As there appears to be prevalent a belief that looking at the sun with the naked eye would be injurious . . . , for some years I have experimented with the sun by looking at it with the naked eye . . . . On one occasion, on the 21st of June at 12 o'clock noon, I looked steadily at the sun for 15 minutes, changing from one eye to the other at intervals of about 30 seconds, and beyond making my eyes run there was no inconvenient effect. This was done while I was living in Atlanta, Ga., where the sun is fairly strong on the date given. As this took place 12 years ago, and, as at the age of 68 my sight is very good, I am sure that no one need fear trying similar experiments.
I hasten to add that I do NOT recommend trying this yourself! Nevertheless, it is certainly experimental confirmation of the conclusion by White et al. that the heating of the direct solar image ``can be safely tolerated'' — at least for a few minutes. Note that the Sun was nearly at the zenith when Lowe performed his experiment in Atlanta at noon on the summer solstice.

Further evidence that even prolonged staring at the Sun does not usually produce blindness is given in the work

M. O. M. Tso, F. G. La Piana
The human fovea after sungazing
Trans. Amer. Acad. Ophthalmol. Otolaryngol. 79, pp. OP-788 to OP-795 (1975)

Tso and Piana asked three middle-aged people, each with an eye that was to be surgically removed to prevent the spread of malignant melanoma, to stare directly at the Sun for one hour, a day or two before the operation. To quote from their summary:


Two of the patients sungazed with an undilated pupil, and, 24 hours later, recovered their preexposure visual acuity with no detectable scotoma. One of the patients looked at the sun with a partially dilated pupil, and 24 hours later her visual acuity dropped from 20/20 to 20/25.


But even in that eye, whose pupil was dilated to 4 mm, acuity was back to 20/20 after another day, though the scotoma remained.

After surgery, the eyes were examined under the microscope. Although damage to the retinal pigment epithelium was seen in every case, the photoreceptors appeared perfectly normal. The ages of the patients were 49, 55, and 57 years.


On the other hand, there are also cases of people who stared at the Sun for only a few minutes, when it was much lower in the sky, and suffered long-lasting scotomas:

M. Hope-Ross, S. Travers, D. Mooney
Solar retinopathy following religious rituals
British Journal of Ophthalmology 72, 931-934 (1988)

These authors report only partial recovery of visual acuity in four patients who stared at the Sun in religious rituals. In some cases the exposure was reported to be only a few minutes, with the Sun moderately low in the sky (variously described as ``late afternoon'' and the like). Although all reported partial recovery of acuity over the course of several weeks, they all still complained of scotomas many months after the injury. These cases indicate that at least some people are quite susceptible to eye damage from staring at the Sun.

Hope it is informative...
Also my request to all to post links on the subject of why it is unsafe to sungze and especially during the first hour of sunrise and lst hour prior to sunset ( whn the UV index is below 2). I am after understanbding the science of sungazing and no data should be neglected.......

Vipul..