Talk:Astral projection/Archive 2

message: What this article really needs is an opposing view, such as can be found in the Neon Genesis: Evangelion article, where multiple views as to the symbolism of the topic are mentioned, though not necessarily cited.  All opinions are not verifiable, yet are agreeable.  The topic of this article is both proven/disproven by opinion alone, as psychology was so many centuries ago.
: Would it be appropriate to have a speculation section? I'm interested in the similarities between the OBE state and a psychedelic dose Dimethyltryptamine experience. I would be willing to write a section with references regarding this. Looking at the article on Dimethyltryptamine they have a similar section speculating DMT production by the pineal gland. This might offer an alternative viewpoint on the origin of these experiences. Misterjingo  02 Feb 2006  02:43 (GMT)
:: Wikipedia does not allow original work. So no, you cannot make a speculation section. If you find papers backing yor claims you could add the info in the critics section. Bragador 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although there are papers and books on Dimethyltryptamine being the possible cause of mystical experiences, and there are many reports from users of Dimethyltryptamine which match near exactly OBE experiences, I don't think anyone has made the link. Dr Rick Strassman made a link between Dimethyltryptamine and nead death experiences in his research though. misterjingo 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argue the Adverse 

message: Talking about astral projection is like talking about ghosts.  No one can prove the existence of either, and they may be more artifacts of pop culture, based on ancient myths, and then they exist, nontheless.  The Norse Thunder god,  Thor doesn't really exist, and neither do Vampires, yet there is some agreement to facts surrounding these mythical, or literary characters.  No one will ever prove astral projection because it is experiential, but it's still worth gathering what information we can.  June 5, 2007
:: I am sure there are people who believe that Thor exists, as well as vampires, as do people believe in God.  Thor is no more or less provable than God.  Discounting them is no way to make a statement. 64.136.201.198 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culling The Truth 

message: I've been trying to make some organizational changes in an attempt to get setup for adding some additional data.  Please let me know if I'm headed in the wrong direction.  What I would like to see is some additional information on the different astral planes, as well as the different spirit world beyond those, such as data on astral beings encountered, astral wildlife, astral entry structures, etc. I'd also like to add a section that discusses the fact that there are many different preparations exercises and separation techniques without actually describing them in a cookbook fashion.  I think it's important for someone perusing this subject to know that they exist as an overview of the information.  I'd also like to expand upon the connections this topic has with different religions and esoteric groups, such as Indian yogis, theosophy, occultists, ritual magic groups, etc.  A comprehensive summary would give the interested reader many different "jumping-off points" into related topics.  These tie-ins are reflected in the literature, which ranges from subjects such as astral projection to chakras, auras, meridians, psychic abilities, mediumship, the spirit world, UFOS, and many other topics quite freely.  Those topics shouldn't be discussed here, just mentioned where they relate to this topic.  I would also like to see the scientific or skeptical side enhanced as well, for balance, although it may be better placed in the main out of body experiences page.  Godshatter 05:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preparing to add additional data 

message: I don't see this in the article, but I've heard many times that while you're in this state, "you" are connected to your body with some kind of silver elastic-like substance.  If someone moves your body or somehow you fall out of bed or whatever, this elastic-connection is broken, and your subconscious won't be able to find your body, thus you'll be stuck in the astral forever, while your body is in a coma.  This is what I've heard...if someone can confirm this, maybe it could be put into the article? Draconiator 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible to get stuck on the astral? 

message: I initially came to this article with the purpose of looking it over and revising it -- then I realized that the sources I was going to add are already there, and it's a pretty well-written article already. Kudos to everybody who's worked on it thus far! --Spazure 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, good job! 

message: This article is good in some ways, but contains a lot of unsourced material and what seems to be a lot of WP:OR.  A good example:
:::"The phasing model, which was defined by Robert Monroe, holds the belief that it is impossible to actually leave your body in the truest sense of the word, and that the astral planes and the physical world are merely points on the long spectrum of consciousness."
This is unsourced, and doesn't really represent what Monroe said.
Another good example: "Astral projection is controversial. It is not observable or testable by scientific method."  This is totally unsourced, and could not be sourced anyway, as it is a statement requiring negative proof.  It also ignores experiments like those done by Tart and those done on Monroe- to give a very small sample.
I'm going to go over the article pretty soon, so this is a heads-up to try and source this stuff.  That's not to denigrate any of the obvious hard work and care people have taken with this article, however (: –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admire most of your recent copyediting and rewording efforts, thanks for taking the time to work on this article! In the future though, please discuss before deleting entire sections.spazure (contribs) 08:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could, but the section didn't have any sources.  I often delete sections, and usually no one minds.  I just figured that it could be re-inserted with a source if anyone cared.  In other words, Wikipedia never truly deletes anything (: Will discuss here in future... though I don't want to delete more sections. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs some improvement 

message: I believe that Carl Sagan in his book 'Broca's Brain' (I think it was that one)  suggested an experiment to test the reported claims of Astral Projection. He proposed that the phenomena could be tested scientifically if the subject could describe the details of a drawing on a piece of paper that the experimenter had produced-the subject of course having no previous knowledge of the drawing. This experiment could be done several times and so test the phenomenon scientifically. Hence I have altered the intial statement that 'It is not observable...by scientific method' to 'To Date it has not been observed by scientific method' --Godfinger 15:28
:Great, I just made the same change.  Seems we have to keep an eye on it (: –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Method 

message: The last sentence of the first part states: 
:The International Cultic Studies Association labelled astral travel as "transparently childish self-deception".[1]
Although this is a referenced quote I think that this is a very loaded statement that only reflects personal opinion and bias.A more neutral quote would be more appropriate. The International Cultic Studies Association no doubt has it's own agenda and it may be more appropriate to include some other statement which reflects the view that Astral Projection is unsupported by scientific evidence. The current quote and the previous entry stating that Astral Projection is not possible to test by scientific method reveals more of a bias towards the belief ( similar to personal faith ) that supernatural events are impossible rather than the more neutral scientific attitude that holds that empirical evidence for such things is lacking. --Godfinger 15:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the only bias is that this article is hijacked by believers in unreasonable and often outright stupid claims and phenomenons. The International Cultic Studies Association is a reliable association with its own agenda: science and reason. If empirical evidence is lacking and cannot be presented, it cannot be tested and verified and as such fails in the eyes of science. Please learn what a scientific method is before you insert your uneducated POV into Wikipedia articles.--Svetovid 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not an uneducated POV you are just displaying your own chauvanistic POV here and intolerance of those who disagree with you. I have no problem with disputing the claims of those who maintain the existence of the supernatural or who have a different interpretation to Astral Projection to your  own POV but the choice of quote is inherently judgemental and loaded that uses words designed to judge and condemn rather than to assess objectively and it simply comes across as chauvanistic. If it is to be disputed then I think there are better , more neutral quotes you could find. It is not true that Astral Projection has been disproved, and it would only need one scientifically verifiable case to provide evidence of it which as yet, you cannot justifiably say will never happen unless you claim to be psychic or something. All one could say is that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the phenomenon and maybe elaborate on the statement with scientific theories that would provide a credible alternative explanation.--Godfinger 18:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say, let that stand- but of course we have to take out the absolutist negative claims which cannot be supported by evidence, and attribute to skeptics.  That is just the way skeptics sound, and there is no reason the article shouldn't present their stance in their words. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe reality and science offend your feelings and especially wishes but there is no reason why you should state your personal wishes as a fact. For the last time, learn what scientific method is and what it requires.Scientific theories do not exist without observable and testable proofs.Also see Russell's teapot to understand the difference between personal experience/wish/thought and observable reality (that analogy is specifically about religion, but the same logic applies here).--Svetovid 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Unacceptable. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Svetoid: Despite your comments I am fully aware of what scientific method is about. Don't make unfounded assumptions on my education. You have no knowledge of my background. Scientific theories exist without proof which is why they are called theories and not facts. Theories about the origin of the universe for example. The theories may be scientific in nature because they rely on other scientific facts and and theories which work within  general scientific paradigms. Please familiarise yourself  with the differences between theories and facts. In this case it may be true that  there may be a lack of empirical evidence but you cannot state with any certainty that it will always be the case and so the correct scientific stance would be to say that there is a lack of empirical evidence. Your attitude resembles a faith in scientism rather than science. I don't disagree that the article could be better if it was balanced with scientific arguments but in the interests of producing a neutral and unbiased take on the issue of Astral Projection I feel that your 'scientific' stance reveals more of your prejudice and desire to imply that people who believe this stuff are somehow stupid rather than any genuine desire to contribute to this article objectively. --Godfinger 11:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientific theories exist without proof which is why they are called theories and not facts." This sentence is enough to demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Read at least the linked wiki articles.I don't think some people are necessarily stupid; they just don't like reality and substitute it with their wishes.I don't even object to that as long as they don't try to impose their skewed view of reality on others when the others are either unaware what's going on or are against it, which is this case.Astral travel and similar games/nonsense are based on personal experience/testimony and does not claim anything else. Again, read the linked Russell's teapot article with an open mind to understand the difference between reality and what you or anybody else proclaim is real.--Svetovid 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are making the fallacy of Russell's teapot in reverse. You are assuming that the lack of proof of a proposition is proof that the proposition is untrue. You could of course take the view that the proposition is unfalsifiable if you wish to subscribe to the Critical rationalism of Karl Popper -a view which undoubtedly has been very influential. However it has not been without it's critics as you will learn if you actually took the trouble to read the article on Scientific Method yourself. --Godfinger 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an invisible horse flying around you all the time, undetectable by any current devices. Prove me wrong.The point is that it's up to you to prove a (ridiculous) claim (argumentum ad ignorantiam).The text is accurate: "to date there is no empirical evidence for it, and thus it is not observable or testable by scientific method." What is not correct about it (logically and factually)?--Svetovid 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is a ridiculous claim. In fact a lot of the claims of quantum physics are also ridiculous but they can be upheld by scientific evidence. However, you cannot prove that it is not the case so you cannot make sweeping statements about it. To do so is beyond  current scientific knowledge. You may have reasons to think it is unlikely but beyond that, you cannot say more-which is what I am trying to point out to you.Just because something seems silly to YOU does not constitute proof that it is untrue or will never be proven true or false by science. --Godfinger 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A gem of a quote from the argumentum ad ignorantiam article :
"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true."
Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make. You are making a logical fallacy that "a premise is false only because it has not been proved true". You really need to study your articles a bit more carefully before you start criticising other editors logical faults. Otherwise it just makes you look so uneducated. --Godfinger 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a gem from : "Scientific method is not a recipe." No better proof that this editor has abandoned reason is needed and I rest my case.--Svetovid 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here is a gem of a quote from the Scientific Method Article : 
'The scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity[15]. Further, it is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods' --Godfinger 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe you should modify the view expressed in the Scientific Method article that you exhort us to read since you claim to know so much more than the rest of us plebs --Godfinger 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You quoted that alone! You took it out of context.--Svetovid 08:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am content to let the current revision rest and wont challenge the International Cultic Studies quote even though I am of the opinion that  it is a slur and really has no place in this article. We could discuss the philosophy of science untill the end of time but really, this is not the place so I think it best to avoid 'scientific method' discussions in the article. I prefer to use the 'sceptical model' as I think that is inclusive enough. In fact the sceptical model section could probably be expanded in this article. However, I still think there are better quotes that could be used to lend dignity to the sceptical position. If I find one-I'll post it on this page to allow discussion rather than indulge in endless edit wars. --Godfinger 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lend dignity? Is it a problem to say that emperor has no clothes; that new-age nonsense is irrational and mainly laughable?--Svetovid 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are a lot of subjects in the Wikipedia that you may consider to be nonsense.That is your opinion. Nonetheless there are many perspectives on these issues other than  your own and it is legitimate to include them all.However  it is not the place here to mock something just because you don't believe it or aren't able to tolerate it because of your own POV. The quote you put there is a slur. You want it there because you want to mock the subject.It comes across clear as daylight and makes your position appear to be a form of chauvanism rather than a legitimate stance. If you think that the sceptical position should be taken seriously then I believe there are better ways of going about it.--Godfinger 08:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it would be more appropriate if the quote went something like this: "International Cultic Studies Association claims that the idea of astral travel is simply self-deception". It would seem less like mocking and still be a correct quote. What do you think? Anton H 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT: The word "childish" seems to me as completely unnecessary and offensive. It doesn't add anything other than the writer's personal opinions. The quote would only be better without it. Anton H 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Cultic Studies 

message: The following needs citation badly.  I hope someone can source it, and then we can put it back in:
===Mental projection===
Mental projection is projection of the astral body to the mental plane via utilisation of mental energy while within the astral or etheric to phase into the Mental, or a different process used to project directly into the Mental Plane. The active subtle body of the mental plane is the mental body, which constitutes the intellectual consciousness of the projector in general. The environment is generally highly colorful and kaleidoscopic in nature, like the astral, and shifting consciously. The difference is that even mathematical functions and thoughts will manifest seemingly physically. The buffer zone between the astral and mental planes is known as the Akashic Records, and appears as a library of knowledge of past, present, and future possibility. There are many theories as to why the perceptions of these records and the mental plane in general differ from projector to projector, but the general consensus is that the Akashic records will appear differently, like a computer or library to different people at different times, and that the future is always sketchy and can often change mid-viewing to the projector.
–––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing to talk page pending citation 

message: Mental projection is projection of the astral body to the mental plane via utilisation of mental energy while within the astral or etheric to phase into the Mental, or a different process used to project directly into the Mental Plane. The active subtle body of the mental plane is the mental body, which constitutes the intellectual consciousness of the projector in general. The environment is generally highly colorful and kaleidoscopic in nature, like the astral, and shifting consciously. The difference is that even mathematical functions and thoughts will manifest seemingly physically. The buffer zone between the astral and mental planes is known as the Akashic Records, and appears as a library of knowledge of past, present, and future possibility. There are many theories as to why the perceptions of these records and the mental plane in general differ from projector to projector, but the general consensus is that the Akashic records will appear differently, like a computer or library to different people at different times, and that the future is always sketchy and can often change mid-viewing to the projector.
–––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mental projection

message: I haven't really cleaned up the sources in the sense of naming them so the appear nicely in the list- they are now repeated, except one.  The reason for this is that the article will probably change a lot in the future, and named references are much easier to mess up, leaving future editors with no clue as to what the original source was. –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on the sources 

message: This article is extremely pro-astral projection and definitely violates WP:NPOV. What's more, a lot of the "facts" contained in the article are cited to less than reliable sources and so I think that a major overhaul is due. I tagged the article accordingly. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you probably noticed that the article was hijacked by a few astral projection fans, who do not allow any neutral edits (as evidenced by edit history and talk page).--Svetovid (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some skeptics who evidently would prefer that any article on AP be purely a neurophysiological interpretation or only contain statements that imply that AP experiences are merely dreams or hallucinations. That anyone who believes or thinks otherwise is an idiot. Such edits made to this effect can hardly  be considered neutral. There are several statements in the article that refer  to that skeptical interpretation, and the definition of AP itself has been described as paranormal. Given the phenomenological nature of the experience, the skeptical interpretation offers nothing more of value to the article. The sources too , are quite reliable in so far they include several standard works on the subject, that contain descriptions of techniques that can be practised even by the skeptical. No doubt, people who have these experiences may have different interpretations to the ones suggested by certain editors who probably have not studied the subject much. The FACTS are that people do have AP experiences, that there is a body of literature that reports about these experiences, that discusses the use of AP in several spiritual and occult disciplines, and may be of interest to anyone who is curious about the life of the mind or psyche or spirit or whatever you might be inclined to call it. All of this is relevant to an article on Astral Projection--Godfinger (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed 

message: I feel this article takes on an overly cynical tone.  Science offers no reason to doubt the exitence of an astral plane.  Science can in fact offer a potential explanation.  Our universe as it is currently understood contains a balance between matter and energy.  This balance allows for the enormous amount of activity that takes place.  Now our universe is generally thought to have begun with the big bang.  Some view this as a miraculous event while others see it as a natural process.  Let us assume it is a natural process.  If this is the case then there is nothing to stop this process happening many more times.  There could therefore be a potentially infinite number of universes co-existing.  This theory, known as the 'multiverse', proposes that there are many different kinds of universe in existence.  These other universes need not neccesarily share the balance of matter and energy that is found in our own.  They could be made of entirely matter, or entirely energy.  A universe made entirely from energy could not occupy any space, since space is a concept defined by matter.  Such a universe then would neither be near to us or far away from us.  It would just be there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.187.193 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  overly cynical 

message: I think that the following edit is not relevant to the 'separation model section. Many advanced "practitioners" claim that the biblical "Jezebel" refers directly to the craft, and that astral projection is an apparent necessity, mandatory (device, key) in all cases of "possession".[8] [9]
Also, I cannot find any references to the publication on the Internet. I doubt if this is an appropriate source. I have my reservations about the other source. It seems that this could be interpreted as an attempt to suggest that Astral Projection is associated with demonic possession and does not belong here so I have removed it. But of course, feel free to discuss.Godfinger (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously did not follow the link. I can agree that it doesn't belong in the 3 models at all.  Anyone here familiar with the book/movie "Invisible Man"?  ell, that's the perfect model of astral projection: Peeping Tom, sadism, & a code of Silence. I rest my case. CalFellows (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then the removal was justified, since the intention of your edit was to say that Astral Projection is somehow 'evil'-which is hardly a neutral POV on the subjectGodfinger (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: My intent was not to say that it's evil, but merely show that it does tie in to witchcraft & possession (paganism). Crowley's work will certainly get you there, The Key of Solomon, and so will much of the occult literature from the 1600s (Gabalis). There is a code of silence and a lot of misinformation (magical nonsense) being put out there by the astral projection crowd in order to hide the plain and simple truth of it, "THE INVISIBLE MAN"." How simple is that? Is there some way to properly make these "pointers"?  Would you care to germinate? 
CalFellows (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, maybe I misunderstand where you were coming from and I'll have to read up on it more -but if you think think is an important aspect of Astral Projection then it probably needs it's own section and headers. So maybe an 'Astral Projection and Witchcraft' section-or 'Occult' section-and as long as the sources are good enough then I think it may be interesting Godfinger (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The initial description is what really needs some work, needs to point to the "Lemegeton" which is the most widely used guide to astral projection. Crowley fits right into it at that point (authored one revision), and then the points that I made would fit accordingly.  If you want to see the fantasy nonsense (occult propoganda), just read Robert Bruces work: - tinyurl.com/289mld -  CalFellows (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure how to best do that but what you say is interesting although it seems that the 'model' (maybe not the best word) you talk about doesn't seem like a model to me. The link to the 'game theory' paper I looked at and although interesting-could be considered 'original research' and may not be suitable according to Wikipedia guidelines. The other reference I just can't find and the link you provided doesn't lead anywhere.-Also I'm puzzled by the 'Invisible Man' analogy since the 'invisible man' had a physical body that became invisible which is quite different to the idea of some sort of Astral Body-which is what the initial description refers to. 
However the Occult/Magickal tradition that you are referring to  I'm sure has a lot of relevance to the article and I have often thought that some sort of 'History of Astral Projection' section would add value to this article-in which case the angle you are coming could be better incorporated into the article. Alternatively you could possibly add a subsection in the 'Projection Types' section and elaborate on what you have to say- mentioning the 'Lemegeton' and other classic works Godfinger (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, give me some time and let me think this one over.  What I was speaking of is more of an expose', truth be told, and my thoughts are that it could well start a freaking flame war.  You should have left it in place, or put it back; would have been nice to see the peeps stick their head up (a little action). CalFellows (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  An expose? Mmm. It sounds that you have an agenda here and I think it would run counter to certain Wikipedian guidlines-'Wikipedia is not a soapbox' for example. Of course there are many finer points of the argument here and I'm open minded about all sorts of issues so if you have something interesting to contribute go ahead.I'm not here to remove other peoples work if it adds value to the article and is in accordance with Wikipedia guidlines and policy. As for putting it back-well, as I said I don't think it had a place there and again, I had an issue with the source.However if you say that there is some sort of 'code of silence' or whatever you are trying to say then you need to back it up with a notable or reliable source. Even though you have some problem with Robert Bruce-he does seem to be a notable figure and so I think it is reasonable to refer to him even if you disagree with him. Maybe some other editors  think differently and hopefully some other editor will have an opinion on this matter to help build consensus on what is and what is not appropriate to include in an article of this nature--Godfinger (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In an earlier discussion, someone was pointing out that Near Death OBE and even Traumatic OBE is never mentioned. The initial description is what needs work, would give place to certain "passing mention" without turning this into a soapbox. CalFellows (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could have a go at working at it if you think it needs it-but I think one of the problems we face is to differentiate Astral Projection from   Out of body experiences and Near Death Experiences. I tend to think of Astral Projection as a way of inducing an OBE type experience which involves interacting with some sort of 'Astral World'.Of course, there may be other definitions-but I think it is something that has to be decided on so it defines the scope of the article. An OBE is simply what it says and it does lead to other types of approach-a physiological explanation for an OBE as opposed to Astral Projection as some sort of paranormal or occult activity. Hence there are different articles for what are arguably different phenomena albeit having certain similarities. So if you want to alter the description are you sure it is relevant to Astral Projection as such? Maybe it is relevant to another article--Godfinger (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astral Projection and Possession 

message: Hi,
Can anyone help me learn astral projection techniques in Toronto, Canada or refer me to a source that can? Thanks
Chris
organika2@hotmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.166.225 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for Astral Projection Help in Toronto, Canada 

message: 'Astral' meaning 'starry' and 'light' may be an accurate enough term, but 'astral plane' meaning 'spatial metaphysical non-2-dimensional space' is ambiguous and a reason scientists do not investigate it.  It is not Minowski space, but if one wants to apply that idea 'plane' should mean 2-d, and one should say 'world/continuum/universe.'  Also the article says astral projection is etheric or spiritual: both are incorrect.  Ether, though generally not proven to exist, never meant anything beyond physical (but somewhat energetic;) etheric projection is OBE in 3 dimensions.  Spiritual is far beyond astral (though it is a 'reflection,') and spiritual projection is projection from the soulful or low spiritual world up!  One might agree deity is 'spirit' not 'ghost;' why not use a more accurate term?
Since this article discusses etheric and spiritual projection, should mental projection be re-re-directed here to a section?  It might be okay with me as long as some of that article was transferred.  OTOH maybe it should be left and also etheric projection should point to OBE.--Dchmelik (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some terminology errors.  Possibly re-redirect 'mental projection?' 

message: It is an Encyclopedia... It is not to teach "beliefs", but to document the knowledge. So I am glad to read the skeleptic version!
189.58.0.125 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see what point your trying to make. The skeptical views have been a part of this article for a while now. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia teaches proven facts. The fact is that different people have different beliefs about astral projection. Some claim to have experienced it themselves, while others claim that those experiences are illusions. Beyond that, there's no proven facts about the reality (or lack of reality) of astral projection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave skepticism here untouched