Talk:Astral projection/Archive 1

message: Anyone who would like to edit this article and perhaps add a source can quote me if they want.  First things first, defining Astral Projection properly.  Astral projection is the seperation of the "eye" or the "spirit body" from the phsyical form, by inducing states relative to sleep.  In order to "project" oneself onto the "astral plane", a "trance" or very relaxed mindset and physical body is very important.  I myself have projected before and you may use me as a source if you want.  (Not trying to be cocky just helping)  Astral projection is not lucid dreaming, therefore you probably wont see a silver cord (unless you dream about those sort of things).  "- It took me a good deal of mental control to stop the constant flow of thoughts to my mind, but once I gained enough control over my mind I could quiet the thoughts of my surroundings and began to relax.  That is always the hardest part for me, after relaxing my whole body I could concentrate on falling out of my average mindset and become entranced.  I always think about falling down a mineshaft or an elevator well, and then everything goes quiet and it all gets heavy.  It feels like someone put an even weight on all of your limbs and your body, and your head always feels heavy and numb, almost lethargic.  You feel like your vibrating while your physical body is actually sleeping, and you are in total conscious control.  Then, it's all about concentrating on lifting your arm out of your body, without moving a muscle.  The separation is entirely surreal, everything seems to whir, and yet you are aware of everything.  It's entirely frightening at first...  I myself have never seen any sort of umbillical cord of silver coming from my navel, but I can say things are eerie,  you can see everything that happens, but cannot move or talk to anyone of them.  People hold conversations and you actually hear them, you can see the cars moving around you and people in thier houses.  If you try and notice something while you have seperated from your body and remember it,  you can prove that its real by looking the next day.  I have never seen any spirits, but I have heard voices, especially in the sky.  They are kind, and always tell me to go back where I am safest."  I know its not much but you can use it if you want.
Average Joe - William Torelli a.k.a  Somewilliepete 17:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I've made this  and  as this article a) is badly written and b) quotes biased sources as verbatim fact. Ceejayoz 21:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible article 

message: Astral Travel section removed: apparently lifted straight from here. Tearlach 22:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable copyvio 

message: I don't see any instances of one paradigm as "verbatim fact," if you ask me, so I for one am against the "complete rewrite" of this (majority of) neutral information, some of which I contributed to.
:The article, at the very least, needs a criticisms section. As is, it presents a lot of very disputed and anti-science concepts as near-factual. As a side note, please sign your entries using four tildes (~~~~) — ceejayoz ★ 20:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: NPOV 

message: Hi, Can someone post some links to prove that atral projection exists? It would help. Without any proof this article looks a little mad if you get what I mean.
: In my opinion, there are no proofs, it's only a known phenomena which does not seem to be definitely linked to an illness (i.e. not associated with schizophrenia psychosis).  The experience happens to some individuals without any known reason and their personal beleif system only seems to affect their own interpretations of it. Reading my own lines, it reminds me of the alien abduction phenomena, which might have more in common than we suspect with astral projection :)
: I don't think the article seems mad personally, but I agree it's controversial like many psychology (and para-psychology) related topics. --66.11.179.30 21:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but then again the article in wikipedia starts by saying it is a controversial interpretation... Bragador 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proof 

message: The research section needs to be cleaned up. The book reference should be at the bottom with the other references and less emphasis on Robert monroe should be put. Make an article on him instead and put a link. Also we need more scientific and serious studies on this. I know remote viewing is more studied by science since there is interesting empirical evidence but we I'm sure a couple of scientific papers have been written. As Gary Shwartz done anything on that subject or not ?Bragador 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research 

message: A lot of claims are not backed by people but only by "specialists, proponents, etc.". When i read it, I see opinions here and there that are not linked to any sources. There are no references at the end of the page (only external links that go here and there) and this make this article not valid. We'll have to work on that people ! Right at the start with the drugs there is a problem since not reference is given !Bragador 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The language is better now, I've removed the  tag. Of course it still needs much improvement in the way of specific references. ··gracefool |☺ 23:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts and Weasel words 

message: By wikipedia's standards, we shouldn't put the external links with the references. So this section should be cleaned.  Also, make sure you put something in the text so people know which reference backs your point. Bragador 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: External links are fine if they are references. However they should use a cite template like  or . ··gracefool |☺ 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've removed the external links section, as there was nothing in it that matched the guideline.  If there is a particular link that someone feels does match the guideline, pop it here and we can discuss it. - brenneman {L}  03:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I wouldn't present the sites in the above order; they just happened to be that way in the original list. -Zorblek (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that sites making commercial publicity (e.g courses, seminars, free or paid) should not be accepted at this article. From my point of view, this article (and other related articles) - which tries to bring the most accurate data and perspectives on themes not common and also not easily understood in current-day society - should include only selected external links to articles, studies, research and forums who may bring some indepth value to the present article; otherwise, it may misguide users leading them into no end illusions and more or less serious "disappointments" (being the less harmful ones 'money exploitation' and 'power submission to individual(s) or organization(s)'). Regards, --88.214.143.49 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, a number of these links would seem to meet that standard. -Zorblek (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Cut back the external link section - removing those sites which exist to promote seminars, books etc, leaving those which seem to offer a little more. StopItTidyUp 20:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: * Recently, the etheric projection article has been nominated a second time for deletion, which had brought me to an interesting observation about both of the OBE related pages.  This article does not cite its sources, as to how or why "astral" as a term has anything to do with outer body travel.  All I see are many arbitrary assumtions, without any evidence to indicate that "astral projection" is even a valid ideology, aside from New Age hogwash.
:This article should either be removed, or merged with a general "OBE" entitled article.  There are no sources stating that "astral" relates to a semi-physical state, and so, it is incorrect to assume that OBE of the mundane nature are astral travels at all.
::Astral projection is a widely used term within the western occult, esoteric and hermetic schools of thought, as well as within more contemporary literature often described with the blanket term 'new age'. Astral Projection is also used in the titles of countless books in this area, which on its own would make the term notable. A simple search on any online bookshop or any search engine will show how widely used the term is. New age subjects will be included in Wikipedia as they are notable cultural concepts. The article needs work but deletion is not an option as the subject is too notable, merging would also not help. The article should simply be taged for sources and accuracy. Best wishes - Solar 11:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Sources, or Citation.  Delete or Merge This Article. 

message: I re-added the mystical model section with some sources. The majority of books hold the view that the astral planes are somehow external to the body, and one projects consciousness in an energy body to experience them. The etheric body for the RTZ zone and the astral body for the astral planes. In his book Astral Dynamics, Robert Bruce extended on this by claiming each plane requires a subtler body to be projected from a prior energy body.
The mystical model more concerns a view of creation containing the source (of everything) at the 'centre', and increasingly dense vibration eminating from this until the physical solidifies from it. The planes in-between the source and the physical are the various astral, mental etc planes. As this idea seems to be the prevalent one currently, I feel it’s important that it is represented in some form. I can go through my library and produce more sources if required.
MisterJingo 04:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are required to supply sources, actually.  So, please do.  This page should be as factual as possible, but so far a lot of it is heresay and speculation.  Otherwise, the additions will be removed, sorry.solstice 10:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model Section 

message: Coming back to this article after many months I notice a lot was deleted with no specific reason given. I am happy for something to be flagged up due to it not quoting sufficient references (this can be fixed and should be discussed), but it seems some of the deletions are based on a users own philosophies of this subject and so they remove ideas they do not like.
Also, 2 links were deleted yesterday and the reason given was they were not high in Google rankings. Can someone please link me to a wiki article which states only certain ranked sites can be linked. The site in question does currently have a low user number (it's growing), but does have thousands of page views per month (see forum stats). The site is also growing as a repository of AP articles and should remain as a link for those who wish to explore this area imo. MisterJingo 12:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  There was no stat counter that I could see, so I had to base the site's relavance on two things: community participation, and search engine ranking.  The latter being more signigicant, because it shows that the website is in fact popular.solstice 10:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I don't see how people can dispute the factuality of this when, as I have understood Astral Projection and OOBE's, everyone either experiences it differently or not at all. For that matter, some people don't even believe or even humor the possibility of a such a realm or the possibilities of other planes of existence, especially those who are extremely closed minded. Therefore, is it even possible to dispute any factual relevancy of this article when it is technically all opinion? Is it even possible to write an article which could have a general consensus when literally everyone has different opinions about the topic? Just some food for though.... Evilgohan2 19:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same can be said of topics on a variety of paranormal or religious articles. This phenomenon (err...I don't know what else to call it) is well-documented and relevant enough to have its own encyclopedia entry. You cannot really have objective, scientific facts when dealing with these types of things related to occultism, religion, or the paranormal. Does that mean that only things that conform to the scientific method should be included in Wikipedia? Of course not. The very fact that you are questioning this as if it were an acknowledged, scientific event makes me wary of your intentions of creating such a topic. And just because there is no physical facts related to the subject does not mean that it is "merely opinions." If that were so, then the same could be said of thousands of Wikipedia pages related to the paranormal, religious, occultist, theoretical, abstract, etc. The factuality being referred to here, I believe is of a well-cited or at least published answer from related books or documentation. Personal experience or as some would deem it,"quackery," is all we really have to go with here for such an event. But to dismiss that as "opinions" does not do justice to the fact that this is an encyclopedia article to a fairly well-established event in an epistemological and historical context. The great kawa 07:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Article Criticism Based on Fact 

message: Is Eckankar important enough for mention in the lead?Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so as the religion was the dreamchild of Paul Twitchell and has no historical basis as Paul claims. Even though Eckancar's teachings refer to Soul Travel, they offer little practical how-to advice and therefore fall into the realm of conjecture regardless of their maps of heaven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.92.194.106 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eckankar 

message: I propose that something be done about improving the definition of Astral Projection to find a way forward rather than indulge in endless edit wars. Despite Svetovid's views of the subject I do believe that the subject matter of Astral Projection has a legitimate place in Wikipedia as those who are familiar with the subject know that there is a body of literature that concerns the subject-a literature that deals with descriptions and techniques that can be practised by anyone who wishes to explore the subject. Whether something leaves the body or whether there exist other realms of being in which the mind can travel to-is something of which sceptics such as Svetovid claim there is no scientific evidence for. However, I do not personally think that the study of conciousness and the experiences of conciousness is beyond some sort of systematic investigation that could be considered 'scientific'. However, much of the literature of Astral Projection is of an 'occult' nature and so, I will suggest that the interpretation of astral Projection be defined as an 'occult' interpretation of the OBE or experiences which suggest some sort of OBE experience. Given this-I believe that the insistence on scientific or sceptical models becomes less relevant to the article. Whereas, a physiological explanation of the OBE experience might be appropriate for the OBE article, I would stress that the subject of Astral Projection is something that goes beyond the mere experience of an OBE and so should not be subject to the sort of critical angle that Svetovid seems to be taking. It would also mean that the tag that Svetovid seems to insist be paced at the top of the article could be removed unless of course the facts that Svetovid dispute are more to do with the accuracy of reporting on the  occult interpretation rather than on the sceptical interpretation of the OBE experience. However, I think that this is probably  unlikely to be the case. --Godfinger 20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The tag is of no importance to me- I don't really care about them.  I've had extensive experience in this area of Wikipedia, and no one yet has found a way to prevent what has happened here- certainly not by tweaking the content.  How about using "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an paranormal or occult interpretation of an out-of-body experience achieved either..."  The word paranormal does more to define the thing.  It could also be used instead of "occult," because I think it may have less cult-like connotations than occult does.  Thoughts? ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe 'paranormal' is a better description.. I thought about that myself. Or possibly something like " Astral Projection is a paranormal or occult interpretation" . I'm not really fussed-if you think 'paranormal' is better then I would be happy with that. I just think we need to find something that is acceptable for the Wikipedia-and I certainly think a better definition would help.--Godfinger 11:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed the wording from 'Occult' to 'Paranormal' interpretation  as I think it is a more accurate description anyway.--Godfinger 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the definition of Astral Projection 

message: I think this article would benefit enormously if  a section on the history of Astral Projection were included. There is a brief but uncited  suggestion of the ancient roots of this subject but if anyone can put together a section on it's history-that not only includes references to ancient knowledge but something of the findings of such investigators as Muldoon and Monroe and any other writers of note (I know Monroe has already been mentioned but he could be included in the history too) -I think would it be a useful addition to this article. I  could try do it myself when I have the time but I think such a section would enhance the value of this article --Godfinger 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be really great.  I don't have the sources to do it, and although I've read Monroe I'm not familiar enough to really do a history. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came across a recently published book that included a chapter on the history of Astral Projection.I can't remember the author's name but he had a sort of Monroe approach to the subject. I'm kicking myself for not buying it but at least it had some references to develop the subject so I'll look out for it .I'm pretty busy at the moment but i'll try and put something together when I can-but as you know it is a question of getting the sources together.--Godfinger 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool (-: ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Astral Projection 

message: This article is about Astral projection.  As such, it is clearly stated "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an interpretation of an out-of-body experience".  Thus, this article is about some people's beliefs.  Though it touches on science to some small degree, it is almost solely about the beliefs some people have about the non-controversial perception of going out of body.  There are claims being made, but they are only from the perspective of the article's title.  We are obligated to touch on criticism only to the extent that claims are being made that astral projection is more than a belief.  Since such claims are barely touched on in the article, there is little obligation to include skepticism.
The ONLY objective claim covered in the article is "Dr. Charles Tart tentatively concluded that etheric projection may have objective validity."  This is not enough excuse for major coverage of skepticism. –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Godfinger and others now will be confused for they obviously believe it's real.--Svetovid 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have  made no statements as to what I personally believe regarding whether something leaves the body or not. I just believe that Svetoid's additions were inappropriate, and I had an issue with his statements about scientific method that is all.I simply believed the tone was inappropriate for Wikipedia.--Godfinger 09:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTCENSORED "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive..."--Svetovid 17:40, 26 
August 2007 (UTC)
We have to keep the tone encyclopedic.  Other encyclopedias don't sound that way. –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The passage made  the tone of the article seem amateurish . It is clear to me that Svetoid actually knows very little about the subject itself and simply wants to use the quote to mock the subject by insinuation. It is not appropriate. --Godfinger 09:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides which, there are some responsible skeptics who don't take that tone.  We shouldn't tar all skeptics by making them seem amateurish attack dogs. –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, of course. In the interest of balance and neutrality, scepticism has it's legitimate place when it's done appropriately.--Godfinger 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Scientific skepticism makes no mention of being a reference to "some random opinion". spazure (contribs) (review) 12:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quote that Svetovid seems so keen to include is not a scientific statement in any sense but an opinion.It reports no scientifc facts as such but merely expresses the opinion of one person who thinks that people who believe in astral projection are somehow childish. It is in fact an  ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with the point being discussed. It is unfortunate that such a cheap rhetorical device is being attempted to be used here in the name of reason and truth.--Godfinger 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny how you and people similar to you stick to using logic (pointing out logical fallacies) in times it suits you and ignore it otherwise.It's not an opinion of one person but a suggestion of a professional and reputable organization.It's not an ad-hominem; believing in irrational, illogical and improvable is childish to say the least.--Svetovid 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you quoted a statement that reported something along the lines that a scientific experiment showed no empirical evidence that something leaves the body, rather than an opinion that people who believe such things are childish then I think it would be more acceptable-but the idea that people who believe in such things are childish is certainly debatable and is no more relevant than to say ,include in the atheism  article that people are atheists because they are people who don't want to believe in God because they want to keep having on wild sex and getting drunk-an argument that has no doubt been put forward by some fundamentalist christians and muslims. Some of them no doubt belong to reputable organisations.But I'm, sure we would both agree that it would not be appropriate for the article--Godfinger 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've had several experiences of astral projection in the past, all of which were far more realistic than my current experience of sitting here and typing on my keyboard. If it were rational to doubt my astral projection experiences, then it also must be rational to doubt my entire life. I don't tell people that they should believe me without experiencing it themselves, and I don't tell people that they should ignore scientific skepticism. However, it angers me that people like Svetovid would use an encyclopedic article to condemn people like me as "childish". Is it childish for me NOT to doubt every experience I've ever had?
Is there a larger article about skepticism and subjective experience anywhere? It seems to me that this is a pretty common problem. The content of one's subjective experience cannot be proved or disproved with current technology. The only evidence for these experiences is that there seems to be many who have experienced them. It is also impossible to prove or disprove whether one's subjective experience has any basis in some kind of reality. A great example of this is the story of the guy who dreamed he was a butterfly. The dream was so realistic that when he woke, he didn't know if he was a man who dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man. If one experiences traveling to another realm, outside of this known universe, how could it be proved or disproved? There is the possibility of those who've had these experiences coroberating them with one another, however a skeptic could say that they've all just read the same book. Do we really need to talk about all of this within the context of this article? I don't think so. There should be an outside article about the difficulty in proving subjective thought that can be linked to. 
Now if there is a theory of astral projection with a basis in the brain, it should be expanded. But why call it a skeptic model? Is this the official term in the literature? If one believes the experience is confined to the brain/mind, that is not skepticism of belief, but belief itself. A skeptic would question all the models, including the so called skeptic model. Brandon1001 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism in this article 

message: So far there has been none. All editors opposing the statement have obvious bias and cannot state a single objective reason why a stance of a professional organization cannot be in the article, especially while opinions of random charlatans are accepted.--Svetovid 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one: stop edit warring.  At this point, you are a vandal. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only vandalism would be opposing well sourced and appropriate edit based on your personal opinion.--Svetovid 09:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, do that. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the opening paragraph of this article-that Astral Projection is an interpretation of an OBE experience is sufficient to justify the inclusion of much of the material in this article. Astral Projection is a TYlegitimate object of study in it's own right, and it has been written about in a substantial body of literature devoted to the subject. I therefore believe that the subject matter in this article genuinely reflects what is known about ' Astral Projection' as opposed to a strictly physiological interpretation of the OBE experience which I believe is more relevant to the OBE article than to the Astral Projection article. Svetovid's edits are quite clearly disruptive as they reflect a personal and  dismissive opinion of this particular subject. An approach which does not add any value to an article on Astral Projection as such. I believe that the material presented in this article is an accurate and factual account of what is known about 'Astral Projection' as opposed to the more specific 'OBE' experience discussed elsewhere.The opinions of the editors of this article are no more biased than the opinions of those who believe in the Big Bang Theory or who contribute to articles on Iceland or Islam. It is not the place of editors to belittle a subject just because they don't believe in it.--Godfinger 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not make claims except to portray an interpretation of the OBE.  This is not an article which deals with proof, and therefore it also does not deal with skepticism to any great extent, any more than religion articles do. Nor do we bash the POVs we write about. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The only skepticism needed IMO is the line that is already there which states that the only evidence of astral projection is in testimonials, nothing more needs to be said. Anton H 13:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for proving my statement that your only argument is your personal opinion.--Svetovid 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any real objections not based on editors' POV? 

message: Astral projection is real. It happens to everyone, even if they aren't aware of it. I have had it happen to me, and I don't care what some people think some guy in a white coat who observes and experiments with physical things thinks about the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanParis (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, ha, I rest my case.--Svetovid 10:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very glad to hear it. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it exists, since in lucid dreaming everything can happened. Allah, God, Jesus all exist there, and you can see them for "real". But you won't create a page on wikipedia saying "The big spaghetti monster exists, I saw it in my lucid dreaming!". Astral projection is just a cool way to move in a (lucid) dreaming. There is nothing paranormal, it's just a part of a dream. This is not at all the way it is presented in the article.
Shouldn't Dreaming be a Sub-Topic like Phasing is on the Astral Projection. I didn't see anything about Dreaming. When people dream, we do travel to another plane in a way. We go to the Dreaming Plane (Excuse this terrible term) to dream. It may be something our brain does to us, but it is in an out of body experience. 
I've also had a wierd out of body experience, which I would call Astral Projection, but I wouldn't write it as a fact, cos it's a mass hallucination and My Word isn't enough evidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niwdog (talk • contribs) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astral projection is real.