Talk:Levitation (paranormal)

(untitled)

Frogus: I apologise for bulldosing the old article, but I think this one is less dissmissive of levitation, acknowledging its long history and peoples belief (no of course I don't believe in it!). I've also added very brief summaries of the most famous cases, but shockingly it seems that none of them have wikipedia articles for themselves yet - thats

• St Joseph of Cupertino
• Daniel Douglas Home
• Nina Kulagina
• Clara Germana Cele
• Amedee Zuccarini

who need articles.

Bible

There are so many references in the bible of levitating people, why isnt it included ?. Or why favor budhism here, the list of levitating saints is a lot larger to give it a start : Saint Teresa of Avila Simon Magus (he was considered evil) Saint Francis of Paula Gemma Galgani Joseph of Cupertino Saint Benedict.

And jesus walking over water counts too i think. etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.161.119 (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Metaphysical?"

The term "metaphysical" doesn't seem to apply to this concept...I have never heard of "metaphysical levitation" used as a term before, and I challege any of this article's authors to find a reputable source to legitimize this article's title. I think Mystical levitation would be more appropriate. Shaggorama 10:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Levitation at the King & Low-Heywood Thomas School

I've removed this entire section:

At the King & Low-Heywood Thomas School in Stamford, CT 17 students in Mr. Schpero's 
Vietnam History class successfully elevated their school 30 feet in the air for 
approximately 2 minutes. This levitation occured between 12:18 and 12:20 pm on 
November 22nd, 2006.

Given that levitating an entire school would require the reconstruction of all the plumbing and wiring thereto, that the article is not sourced, that the editor made only this one entry to Wikipedia, and that there are no relevant Google entries that don't lead back to this article, I'm going to delete this as nonsense.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Levitating saints

Are people just making these lists up? Few have any citations. I'm going to rip them all out soon William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

re: Recent article "improvement"

For the sake of preserving information for future expansion, here is how the article appeared before it was stubbed to barely nothing. -- œ^™ 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is the diff [1]. I don't see any discussion of that. It wasn't a great article, more a list of lists. Was that valuable? I'm not sure William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't that great. But however bad it was, indiscriminately blanking everything "pending a rewrite" which never came, was worse. -- œ^™ 09:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, since I agree I've restored the article but then tried to regroup it a bit. I think it could do with more text and less examples. For example, I'd be tempted to say (of Christianity, say) that levitation used to be a proof of holiness but is now regarded as a bit of an embarassment. But I've no source for that so I won't. But some kind of context of how the Church views this stuff would be worth having William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it. I really enjoy reading about these topics. Yes I agree it needs work. If only a prose-pro could come along and somehow weave this together into paragraphs, that would make for really interesting reading, but it would take more research and searching for references. In the meantime, the tags are there, and the article does its job sufficiently. -- œ^™ 11:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Video

I think this video should be linked in any part of the article.--85.55.134.145 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible scientific explanation

I propose this section be either expanded with a thorough critical discussion, or deleted altogether. In its current form, it is misleading about the scientific acceptance and underpinnings of the phenomenon, and includes vague legitimate-sounding terms which are basically just buzzwords and lacking any context. The use of quotation marks in "tapping into" is especially telling. Also, both the ideas of harnessing zero-point energy, and of the mind being able to directly manipulate the physical world are controversial and more in the domains of metaphysics and pseudoscience. --Rubseb (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it's pseudoscientific gibberish. - Sikon (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad you agree. I'm not sure what the conventions are for handling this sort of thing but I'll just remove it and see what happens. If people think it should be included then hopefully they'll react by putting it back in a better form or at least making a case for it. --Rubseb (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Transfiguration of Jesus, the flying Messiah.

You forgot that one. It's mentioned in all four Gospels. Jesus flew from a mountaintop high into the air to meet Moses and Elijah, who were descending from heaven to have a conference. According to the story, the three of them levitated quite some time having a conversation. 2600:8801:BE26:2700:B09F:3FEF:E7EB:2AC5 (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC) James

I don't recall that one. Care to give a source? Or rather, four sources, since it is "in all four Gospels"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Attempts to explain the phenomenon of religious levitation (RL)

Since the text was completely removed from the article by the editor, I am posting it below for discussion. I suggest that we start taking seriously the physical phenomena that we call "paranormal" without being able to explain them. I hope that, as a result of the discussion, the text will be restored, or guidelines will be given for correction.

Attempts to explain the phenomenon of religious levitation (RL)

Descriptions of the course of levitation phenomenon from the beginning were associated with an indication of the action of the force lifting the levitating person. St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), describing the feelings she experienced during her levitations, wrote: "it seemed that I was being lifted up by a force beneath my feet so powerful that I know nothing to which I can compare it”.[1]

A. Poulain SJ (1836–1919), theologian, mathematician, arguing with the court about the possibility of the losing the weight of the body of the levitating person, wrote that this hypothesis is untenable from the point of view of physics, because the movement of lifting once started would cause their body to rise into the sky. He considered it more logical that "nothing is destroyed here, but something is added, namely, a force equal to and opposed to the force of gravitation." [2]

In 1980, at the request of Arthur Koestler (1905–1983), a "bed for mass measurement" was made. Its task was to record changes in the weight of children playing on it or people meditating. The idea of the experiment was based on the idea that changes in the mood of the subjects affect the fluctuations in the mass of their bodies. The research was not successful.[3]

P. Wirowski (born 1955) developed a physical model of the course of the phenomenon of religious levitation (RL). For the purposes of the model, he introduced the hypothesis that only a small part of the surrounding us energy has a property called mass. The remaining majority of it, which he referred to as NRM (Not Replaceable with Mass), does not have such a property and does not interfere with matter. The idea behind the model is that the increased mental activity of the levitating person results in an increase in the density of the surrounding and associated NRM energy. The result is the appearance of a buoyancy effect in the NRM energy environment, according to Archimedes' law opposing the force of gravity (levitational buoyancy). Depending on the mutual proportions between the values of gravitational forces and levitational buoyancy, the model predicts four phases of the RL phenomenon. The stationary suspension of the levitating person in the air occurs in the (last) phase IV.[4]

References:

[1] Teresa of Jesus. The life of Teresa of Jesus. The Autobiography of Teresa of Ávila., Chapter XX, p. 113, Trans. & edit. by E. Allison Peers, from the critical ed. of P. Silverio de Santa Teresa, C. D.. Scanned by Harry Plantinga, planting@cs.pitt.edu, 1995. (Original work published 1592). https://www.carmelitemonks.org/Vocation/teresa_life.pdf; Retrieved 18 September 2022

[2] Poulain, A. (1923). Des graces d’oraison, traité de théologie mystique. G. Beauchesne.

[3] Scammell, M. (2009). Koestler. The literary and political odyssey of a twentieth-century skeptic. Random House, Inc. pp. 554-n.

[4] Wirowski, P. (2021). Static-Dynamic Model of Religious Levitation, [in:] Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, vol. 85, Nr 3, Issue 944, July 2021, pp. 145-158. Szacholub (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

A number of people believed the tall tales they heard and failed to explain the things happening in those tales. And you want Wikipedia to embrace their gullibility. WP:FRINGE says we should not do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

And that is all. Thank you! Sgerbic (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says it all. Though perhaps 'not a compendium of credulous bollocks' might need adding explicitly, just in case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The 1980 "bed for mass" failed experiment may be worth mentioning if a better source can be found for it. The other examples simply start by concluding that the phenomenon is a real thing and engage in hand-waving to explain it, violating Occam's Razor by introducing still more untestable hypotheses. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The saddest thing about the levitation bed experiment was that John Hasted, who ran it, convinced himself that it showed positive results of sorts. He claimed to have measured changes of mass of up to 200 grammes in subjects. Which needless to say isn't evidence for levitation. Or anything else except inadequate instrumentation, if one doesn't assume outright fraud (not necessarily by Hasted) which is also possible. Then again, he fell hook, line, and sinker for Uri Gellar's hokum too. Chronic Gullibility Syndrome at its worst. [2][3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Can any of this be included without endorsing levitation as a real phenomenon, à la Lamarckism. St. Teresa of Avila (if the source is sound) and Hasted seem notable enough for inclusion. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Teresa is already mentioned in the article. Though the entire 'religious views' section doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy, in my opinion. It repeatedly claims that saints etc actually engaged in levitation - something Wikipedia should never be doing. It also rather implies that the belief in levitating saints is normal for Christians as a whole, which I'd have to suggest isn't actually true.

As for Hasted's experiment, we'd need proper sourcing. I've only done a superficial search, and there may be more out there. If a properly sourced, maybe we can include something. The Bourke paper I link above provides a broader context for Halsted, which really needs including if we discuss him - it wasn't mainstream science, even during the 1970's when credulity about the paranormal, along with more general mystic woo, was fashionable in certain physics departments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

the entire 'religious views' section [..] repeatedly claims that saints etc actually engaged in levitation May be better now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

We should take care to limit the subject of the article Levitation (paranormal) to issues concerning exclusively the (more or less alleged) phenomenon of physical levitation of people, religious levitation (RL). For example, information about Tomczyk/Marriott is unnecessary, because its place is at psychokinesis. Also, there should not be a photo from the performance in Prague, because its place is at Levitation (illusion).

At this point, it is worth noting that the article does not meet the requirement of neutrality. Of the three photos posted, all of them are depreciating the issue. It was enough to post even a very popular image of St. Joseph of Cupertino.

An important task is how to condition the separation of an authentic physical phenomenon from the theater, or even deception. It should not be all thrown into one bag. It is worth extracting the sections: the phenomenon / attempts at deception / attempts to explain. Excessive belaying is unnecessary, because it makes the article unreliable. Levitation (paranormal) is marked with the disclaimer "the claimed paranormal phenomenon of levitation, occurring without any scientific explanation". And that's enough.

There is no brief discussion of the course of the phenomenon and an outline of possible sources. Statement: “While believed by some in certain religious and New Age communities to occur as (…)” leads to misunderstandings. For example, in Christianity, levitation is not the object of belief. It does not condition or deny the holiness of levitating persons. Nor is it mentioned among the charisms.

There is no indication in the article that not all information comes from sacred sources. There are also documents. For example, when a doctor directly assisting a patient testifies that in his presence, after momentary futile attempts to hold on to anything, she rose and froze motionless for a long time in ecstasy, we should treat his testimony as the expertise of a specialist, equivalent to scientific evidence. Whether we can physically explain the course of the phenomenon should not affect our statement. Szacholub (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is mot a platform for the propagation of credulous bollocks. If you want to read articles which give any implication whatsoever that levitation is an 'authentic physical phenomenon', you will have to look elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So what is religious levitation? The article only defines what it is not. Szacholub (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no authentic physical phenomenon. And the word "neutral" does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE in Wikipedia, it means WP:BALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:Neutral point of view: This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. Szacholub (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The crucial part of that policy for this article is WP:FALSEBALANCE. I linked it for you above. You should click on the link and actually read it. No, I'll copy the relevant part here: Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. The sentence after that gives examples, and "people can levitate" is not one of the examples only because of historical coincidence. It is on the same level as the examples listed there. We will not pretend in the article that levitation is real, or that the idea that levitation is real has any merit. Your understanding of NPOV is simply wrong. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Szacholub (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)