Why can't science detect auras?

Originally Posted by DulcePoetica

Actually, my point is precisely that what we call a spiritual experience happens whether or not science has a device for observing it. Once science has a means to record it, we will stop calling it a "spiritual experience" and accept it as a "scientific fact."

That was also how I read it Without imagination there would be neither science or spirituality, so I suggest we put it in that same box without any borders known to man.

Although weak evidence, there might be a lower electrical resistance across acupuncuture points and meridians.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18240287

Originally Posted by Aquarian

We also have instruments which can detect atoms, subatomic particles, even gravitons (via that $9bn, 17 mile long supercollider), but can't detect anything of an aura.

Now I can see auras as well as anyone, excepting people like Barbara Ann Brennan. The latter used to be a NASA researcher. She set out to build an instrument to detect auras and failed.

Why?

I saw several documentaries in years past that said science could and did detect and prove that chakras and auras did exist. These were also more mainstream scientific documentaries, not spiritual. And now of course, we say that science cannot detect the aura???? Yet another set of facts that have been changed around.

My advice Aquarian, believe what you believe and don't look for the secular world to affirm much of anything. When it comes to spiritual matters, science agrees one year and says its all hogwash the next. It's seems some scientists just don't want anything spiritual to exist... I could tell you stores brother.

Originally Posted by Mind's Eye

My advice Aquarian, believe what you believe and don't look for the secular world to affirm much of anything. When it comes to spiritual matters, science agrees one year and says its all hogwash the next. It's seems some scientists just don't want anything spiritual to exist... I could tell you stores brother.

What science actually says never changes. Only interpretation of (independently-reproduced) research changes.

But what I'm talking about here is what we can learn from science. OK, scientists aren't looking that hard for evidence of spiritual matters, but the fact they've found nothing bar possibly some lower resistance along meridians is very significant.

To me it implies that the astral realm is an almost entirely distinct dimension... that the interface between the astral dimension and the physical dimension is very narrow indeed.

As such we shouldn't expect to be able to see auras with physical science equipment, but we may well detect auras and subtle energy interaction indirectly. Given the effort put into exploring quantum weirdness, perhaps we'll see it there first.

The neo-pagans say that the veil between the two worlds is thinner at Samhain (Hallowe'en). Wonder if CERN has discarded any spooky results on that day...

Yogananda states that there are even more subtle dimensions than the astral.

[Papa Bear]

Hi guys, thought I would share my own reflection regarding this question. The aura in essence is a combined reflection, of both material and subtle ethereal resonance energies. The material resonances are the aspects of the aura that many associate to seeing, such as Kirlian photography, as energy signatures which are reflected naturally, are within the spectrum of material recognition.

The ethereal aspects of resonance reflections are more subtle, and require a third eye sensitivity to experience the ethereal auric condition, I say `experience` rather than see, because `awareness` produced by ethereal sensitivity is not the same as human sensitivity.

The reason material science cannot reflect the aspects of the aura which are more subtle and ethereal, is because the resonances of the ethereal condition are not recognized `yet` within modern physics. I say yet because the Higgs boson, or `God particle` as some call it, is the closest physics have come to what is a `formless` particle of ethereal resonance energy. Because it may be established as having an effect upon other material energies, even though it is `formless`, it may still be defined in science as existing.

If this occurs in the future, science will justify the reality of Spirituality, by recognizing that the resonances of ethereal flow reside at the very core of every particle in matter. And by definition will become recognized as the `quintessence` or `fifth element, which will justify every individuals experience of another nature of existence and experience, within the formless resonances of the ethereal condition.

Human beings place image to most experiences to simplify recognition, but often those images are distractions from the reality of the actual experience. The elements of the `aura` which are reflections of the `ethereal` condition of a life form, are not material atomic energies, they are by definition `formless` to our human perception. But not to our experience of those subtle resonances of the ethereal extension of material life forms, empathies, intuitiveness, insightfulness, create awareness before thoughtfulness, within our human experience of auric influences.

It is simply a question of feeling rather than seeing, which is why it is so hard for science to discover what the rest of us already know. Hope that was not too much or too long, but if you have a reflection to share, this is the place and people to share it with, in the hope someone may gain from it.

Mayeb in the future it would be possible.

Science can detect chakras. They probably don't want to admit that they exist. If science were to admit that chakras exist. Than they'd be admitting the existence of God. That would put some scientists out of work.

[Sapphirez]

that's a nice synopsis Papa Bear.


as some say, yes I definitely think there is more proof out there, but some people "in charge" really don't want us to know about our true spiritual natures and they go to certain lengths to cover this sort of stuff up.

in any event, much of the science we have today was thought of as just as preposterous or more~so

hmm I heard that in Kirlian photography they cut off part of a leaf and that the whole leaf was able to be photographed shortly after even though a part of it was missing. also it is said that every object has some sort of life to it, so if a pencil seems to have an "aura" it's not really that outlandish. I don't know really though, I haven't put research into this avenue. I just think it's silly to discount or discredit many things just because we haven't found a way to measure them yet. In My opinion That's not being scientific, because the history of science has proved over and over again that people are naive and crazy things are perfectly possible and plausible