Red Lights - Film Review

 A classic film for lovers of  scepticism, this is a story about scientists debunking stage psychics using a variety of laboratory techniques.

IMDB linky

The story centres around a small team of scientists who, aside from their academic careers, work to prove or disprove the genuineness of people who claim to have psychic powers. Sigourney Weaver plays a college professor who has 20 years' experience in the field. We see her giving lectures about how so-called mediums use tricks during seances - with the buildings power to make the lights go off and on, and use sleight of hand to move the table around, and so on. Weaver's character has strayed away from objective science a long time ago, having never seen a genuine case. Her assistant, played by Murphy, is the technician with all the fiddly bits of recording equipment. He's younger and less sceptical, but she's done a reasonable job of bending him to her belief that there is no such thing as psychic powers.

Along comes De Niro who is clearly based on 1980s spoon-bending guru Uri Geller. He can also apparently read minds, cause electronic equipment to explode and do faith healing. He and Weaver have "history", and he's the only psychic who really has her thinking that her sceptical view of the world might be wrong. Cue arguments within the team, embarrassing TV chat show recordings, spooky psychic events happening all over the place, and the feeling that De Niro really does have powers that he can use at a distance. Several twists make it into an intriguing tale with a surprising ending.

There are some really good scenes where the psychic powers are being analysed under lab conditions. This movie is a good introduction to the science of scepticism.

Poor points in the film include ridiculous over-acting (Weaver sometimes comes across as if she's fighting aliens rather than doing science experiments) and a bizarre love affair that's quite inappropriate, yet has no bearing on the rest of the story.

So all in all not a particularly gripping, or even convincing watch, but it gets you thinking a lot about psychic powers and leaves you with a sense that not all the answers are yet there.

Tropical Astrology

In the west, since about 2000 years ago, there have been two schools of astrology that appear, to the outsider, to be fundamentally opposed – tropical and sidereal - but astrologers claim that there is no conflict. Astrology is a hugely complicated subject that has grown and developed over 5 millenia in many different traditions. Here I'm not planning to question the astrological interpretations themselves – tripe though they may all be; but instead I'd like to focus on the astronomy involved and what it can tell us about these two different astrological models.

Astrology basics

So as you probably know, astrologers seek to make predictions about our lives, and about world events, based on the “influences” of certain heavenly bodies. Of particular importance in developing a person's chart are the relative positions of these heavenly bodies at the time of birth. Depending on which system is used, the position of the sun, the moon, the other planets of the solar system and various distant stars are used and the angles between them are calculated and plotted in a special way to develop the chart. The positions of each of these relevant heavenly bodies are looked up and referenced using a chart called an ephemeris. Of course there are numerous disagreements about how this process should be done, and numerous different, contradictory ephemera. And numerous, different interpretations of the influences. But don't let that put you off this scientific, results-driven science.

Terran orbital mechanics and how we see the universe

If you are already familiar with the language and concepts in planetary geometry, you may want to skip this bit. In order to make it is simple as possible, I'm going to explain everything at a basic level.

The Earth moves in three main ways –  it spins round on its axis, it orbits the sun, and it wobbles on its axis. The period we call a day is the time taken for the Earth to do one revolution on its axis. It takes a bit shy of 365 and a quarter days to go all the way around the sun, which is simplistically the period of time we call a year. More on this later. The wobbling on the axis is what is called precession, and is much slower – one whole cycle of the wobble, known affectionately as a great year, takes approximately 25,800 years (no one seems to be able to agree on the exact length of time).

So, when we look from the Earth at the skies, all these three motions play a part in the way we observe the rest of the universe.

The daily spinning of the Earth on its axis means that, through each 24-hour period, looking directly up, we see a whole 360 degree panorama of the universe appearing to rush across the sky from East to West.

The yearly motion of the Earth's orbit round the sun means that over the course of a year, the time of day that we see a particular star or constellation (from a given location on the Earth's surface) gradually rotates around, coming round full circle in a year's time. I'll make that simpler with an example. As I write, here in Los Angeles at 130am, the constellation Perseus is just rising from the Eastern horizon. At the same time of the night in a couple of month's time, it will already be high in the sky. Next spring it will be invisible to the naked eye, as it will only be in the sky during the day. On this day next year, it will once again be rising in the sky at around 130am.

The sun can be seen to “appear” in a series of certain constellations throughout the course of the year. What this means is, that constellation is directly behind the sun, from the Earth's perspective, depending on the time of year. (That is, assuming that there are no light bending effects of the type known to be exerted by dark matter and black holes). In a way, the sun traces a path across the heavens, always “appearing” in the same series of constellations in a constant cycle, year after year. This path is called the ecliptic line. The movement of the moon across the skies is essentially the same is this, tracing roughly the same line, except it cycles around the heavens in about a month instead of a year. The other planets of the solar system can only be seen on or close to this line, since the solar system is basically a flat plane. Their periods and locations in the sky are more complicated.

Most of the stars, galaxies, nebulae and so on can be said to have “fixed” positions relative to the Earth, and to each other. Of course, this is bullshit. They are all moving at thousands of miles per second, as is our own solar system, but since they are all so far away we can't see this movement (without lab equipment) as it appears to happen extremely slowly.

Precession and the different ways of defining a year

So when you talk about a year, what do you mean exactly? The period from New Year's Day to New Year's eve? 365 days? Another cup final day?

In fact there are several distinct and precise ways of defining a year. Two are important here:

a tropical year is the time taken for the Earth to complete one 360 degree orbit around the Sun, being defined by the time from one vernal equinox to the next.

a sidereal year is the time taken for a “fixed star” to return to the same position (at the same place and time).

Because of precession, being the Earth's wobbling on its axis, these two years are of slightly different lengths. This is because the two measurements are topologically different. A tropical year is a function only of the Earth's orbit around the sun; whereas a sidereal year is measured from the surface of the earth, which has it's own independent movements. The sidereal year system has another degree of freedom, as there are two mechanisms contributing to it.

To illustrate by example: this year, the sun was very close to the star Omega Pisces (i.e. the Earth, the Sun and that star were in approximate alignment) on the vernal equinox. They rose from the horizon at about the same time. Next year, the sun will be about 50 seconds ahead of that star. In 2018, the difference in rising times will be closer to 5 minutes. This is because, since the Earth has wobbled slightly, a given location on Earth, at a given time each tropical year, is pointing in a slightly different direction towards the heavens.

Another way of expressing this is to go back to the apparent “motion” of the sun through the different constellations of the ecliptic. On a particular time and day of the year (lets say the vernal equinox) the Sun's position will gradually shift across the sky, over thousands of years, such that at the end of the precession cycle it will have cycled all the way around the ecliptic and back to it's start point.

Zodiacs and different types of astrology

A zodiac is a map of the ecliptic line that astrologers use. Most western astrologers use a zodiac that is divided into twelve equal sections of 30 degrees each. These are just like grid references on a map of a section of the Earth. The sections are named after the real star patterns – Scorpio, Leo etc. but only loosely. (The real constellations have varying angular widths and there are in fact at least thirteen real constellations along the ecliptic).

The starting point for the zodiac was set a long, long time ago as the “first” star in Aires, Mesarthim.  The sun was directly on the line between the Earth and this star on the vernal equinox. In a tropical zodiac, which defines a year as a tropical year, this starting point of the zodiac always occurs on the vernal equinox, March 21^st.

However, because of precession, over many years the position of the sun, (relative to the real constellations along the ecliptic) on this date and time changes. Therefore a sidereal zodiac takes into account the precession cycle by shifting the start times of each “sign” according to what is observed from Earth.

The difference means that over time, these two different zodiacs have become out of sync with each other. In fact, while Tropical astrologers have always defined the start of the sign of Aires on March 21^st, sidereal astrologers currently define its beginning on April 15^th.

(There is a third type that I'll mention only briefly – where the “signs” are of varying length, defined by the movement of the sun through the actual constellations in the ecliptic as defined by the International Astronomical Union in 1930. This zodiac usually has 13 signs (14 in some systems).  Even most astrologers think this system is bogus. “Reputable” western astrologers generally agree that there should be twelve signs of equal length.)

What does this mean for astrology?

To the lay observer, it seems that at least one of these systems must be fundamentally flawed. If your birthday is today, then in one system you're a gemini and the other you're a cancer. All that gobshite about this sign means this and that sign means that, its meaningless. At first glance it seems that tropical astronomy is the one that is bunk, because the dates are so out of sync with the real constellations. So if your horoscope is telling you that Jupiter is rising in Aires, whilst a quick glance out the window clearly reveals it to be in Taurus, it makes you question the validity of this amazing ancient divination tool...

But to be fair you need to look a bit deeper than this really. According to most writers, the zodiacs were never meant to be representative of the actual starscape, they were only supposed to serve as a referencing grid system. One way of thinking about tropical astrology is that its zodiac measures cycles of solar time and, therefore, remains linked to the seasons on Earth. OK, well if that's the case, why all the significance and symbolism around the constellations themselves then? Why do we have to hear about Aires, god of war being influential in our relationships and Libra bringing harmonious balance to our lives?

The tropical zodiac preserves the Earth's solar cycle

Imagine each zodiac like a measuring stick against the heavens. The tropical “measuring stick” is fixed to the Earth's Solar cycle. The cycles and patterns of all other heavenly bodies are out of sync with it. This means that the positions of the “constellations” themselves, and the position of the planets in relation to them, should be meaningless in tropical astrology, since the predictions of their locations via a tropical ephemeris are incorrect.

Essentially, a tropical zodiac is little more than a solar clock. Predictions made from it can only really relate to cyclical effects of the Earth-Sun system. Some attempts to justify astrology point to the possibility of the seasons having an influence on foetal development, as a possible mechanism by which time of birth could help predict personality. Of course, even if this were true, it would only explain a tiny minority of the claims astrologers make.

The tropical zodiac does allow comparison of the solar system bodies, however. Astrologers are very concerned with the angles between Earth and the different planets. Using this system, calculations of these angles will be correct, although it does depend on where you get your data. Of course, prediction of where in the sky the planets actually appear will be skewed. But that doesn't matter to a tropical astrologer as long as they are in the correct sign of the chart.

Also, position on the earth isn't relevant either. This is because, over time, a particular place on Earth moves slightly for the same date each year. It doesn't observe the same part of the "measuring stick".

Say a prediction is made about the influence of Sagittarius on someone born in New York. In tropical astrology the same prediction might be made year after year for children born at that place and time of year, but after hundreds of years, Sagittarius would instead be rising over Oregon at that time, and Capricorn would be the actual part of the zodiac “influencing” the birth (with whichever planets are currently in that constellation).

The age of Aquarius is only possible in Sidereal astrology

This is because the so called ages come about due to the precession cycle. The Age of Aquarius is supposed to begin when the Vernal Equinox shifts into the part of the zodiac known as Aquarius.  So if you hear any astrologers who follow the tropical system (most of the ones in the western world), talking about the dawning of a new age, they are talking complete horseshit.

The sidereal zodiac preserves the cycle of the ecliptic

On the flipside, sidereal astrology maps the ecliptic with its zodiac in way fixed to a given location on the Earth. It effectively charts and maps the constellations themselves. The “measuring stick” is fixed to the distant stars. When these guys talk about the positions of constellations and planets in the sky, over a particular place at a particular time, they really mean it. However, this is at the expense of the influence of the cycles of the seasons. This zodiac is out of sync with the Earth-solar cycle. Also, it must be noted that the precise mechanics of precession are not perfectly understood, so the length of a precession cycle is not precisely known. It may oscillate and never be the same from one cycle to the next, which means there will be inaccuracies in the sidereal zodiac also. But as long as it is is based on (and updated according to) actual observation, this doesn't matter too much.

Most writers agree that Sidereal astrology was around long before it's tropical cousin, and sidereal (and complex versions thereof) is still the most common form in the East. Indian writers refer to tropical astrology simply as “Western”. Some say that Tropical astrology is simply a more esoteric and mystical form, whereas sidereal is more practical and factual. Some think that tropical is better for predicting psychology, whereas sidereal is better for predicting events.

However, the best conclusion to come to, is that right from the off, tropical astrology is complete crap. One huge mindfuck of a mistake that people have been labouring under for the last 2000 years, and are still in denial about it.

Think about it. In ancient times, people believed that gods ruled the world and that the movements of stars and planets had a real effect on peoples' lives. It's entirely understandable that they would then invent a system for predicting the movement of the stars and planets, in the hope that it could be used to predict events. Before the days when humans really understood anything about astronomy, this sort of logic is reasonable, if a little flawed.

Was Ptolemy on drugs when he made this?

But then, someone came along and said, “Ah ha! Well instead of using the real movements of the stars and planets, why don't we simply refer to a fantasy one instead? We can use inaccurate information about the heavens to make even more inaccurate predictions about our lives!”

Thinking about it, Ptolemy was probably high as a kite when he came up with the first tropical zodiac system. Looking over it the next day, and realising he'd made a big fuck up, he probably invented all this new age stuff about linking the zodiac to the cycles of the Earth, just so he could avoid losing his status and employment. Not that I'm cynical about these things or anything.

Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (part 1)

I've always wondered who these latter-day saints were. Now I know, there's only one of them. His name was Joseph Smith and he lived in New York in the early 1800s. He invented a religion that now has 135 temples and 14 million members worldwide.
In a moment curiously reminiscent of the "discovery" of reiki by Mikao Usui, Smith:

"went to a grove of trees near his home and knelt in prayer. He described his experience: “I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me [ … ] When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” 

That's it, the whole religion is founded on that one, mind-blowing psychedelic experience. Terrible! I've seen more convincing stuff on hippiesonacid.com. Having spoken professionally with lots of people who suffer from what is nowadays known as schizophrenia, this description sounds somewhat familiar to me. I'm not suggesting the guy was mad - in fact, far from it, he was clearly very together - but I am suggesting that he doesn't sound very convincing nowadays. I would most definitely get locked up if I started coming out with stuff like this. Smith got away with it because in the time and place he lived there were countless religious nuts and suffering, vulnerable people ravaged by battles, poverty and disease, desperate to have some ray of hope to latch on to.

He went on to produce vast quantities of scriptures that were "shown" to him by God - modern yoghurt weavers call this process channeling - and like all clever founders of religions he emphasised how important family is to God (thus ensuring that the religion passes on, and multiplies, through family units.) And of course, allowing men to have multiple wives is all part and parcel of that, right? I mean, it's part of God's plan to restablish the traditions of the Old Testament times. There is of course, the theory that Smith was having an affair with someone in his congregation, and not wanting to get in trouble with his wife, he decided to invent God's doctrine on polygamy. But obviously that can't be true. It must be all part of God's plan, that's why the Mormon church public renounced it just before the turn of the century.

They've got this thing about Temples, in Mormonism, too. They seem to think that from the time of Jesus until the time of Smith there were no temples in the world. Except in Asia, Europe, Africa, Australasia, South America, ooh and other parts of North America? Maybe they missed a few out when they were counting.

It's not unusual for Christian religions to be anti-gay but the Mormon church has a particularly interesting viewpoint. Because for them, family is everything, "Any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and mariage is between a man and a woman." Mormon's will not budge on this, as it is the word of the Lord who is perfect. But it's OK because they don't like to discriminate gays in society in issues such as housing or employment, oh and the chuch's position is based on love so it's quite fluffy really. They're sinners against God and they are wrong, but its OK really, we don't hate them. Aw, bless. How understanding these Mormons are about the diverse populations of the world.

There'll be more on the LDS in later blogs but, walking past the place every day whilst walking my dog I started to wonder who are these people who dress in suits for no good reason, when it's 100 degrees in the shade...

God doesn't talk to me when I wear my purple hat

This is an announcement that the second edition of the Yoghurt Weaving book is now available as a paperback or a download. It's up on Lulu.

Here's the link to my Lulu page.

If you live in the UK then it is still cheaper to get the paperback book from Completely Novel. However if you live outside the UK, or want to buy a download for $3.50, then get it from Lulu. That works out around £2.10.

The content is basically the same apart from a few 's's replaced with 'z's and so on, and  a few corrections here and there from the original text. I've released this second edition because there were some people living in far slung corners of the world who weren't able to get hold of the original book.

Please take a look and recommend it to your friends too!

A snippet from my novel

Now some of the other things happening in the room were beginning to get clearer. The lights were coming from the walls and they were indeed a mixture of yellow, orange and lilac. He had thought this odd before in his dream-like state but now he understood that these walls were made entirely of crystal, and the crystal itself was glowing in a chaotic, transient flow of these colours and numerous mixtures thereof. 

Boon became transfixed by the walls, gazing around at them, trying to take in the whole scene at once, his mind becoming more and more incredulous. However before he had managed to comprehend the walls, he noticed also the people standing in the middle of the room. There were two women and three men and they too, were a sight to behold with awe, for they wore intricate painted make-up that covered almost all of their bodies, and their only clothing – bar tie-dyed loincloths - was in the form of dangly accoutrements around their necks – shells, feathers, beaded necklaces and other jewels and talismans that were made from things found in nature. They were parading around in a circle, making wild gestures up, down and all around them with their hands, and they seemed lost in a deep trance. The mumbling was now clearer but he could still not work out the words. Boon was sure they were from another language, perhaps some ancient dialect that was mostly forgotten in the books that had been burnt since the war. They looked for all the world like tribal shamans that he might have seen on a documentary about the old world. 

The next thing that Boon noticed took him completely by surprise, as it turned out that two of the men were Paul and Yosi. He could scarcely recognise them and had to squint in the strange light to be sure; he also turned to Jenna for reassurance. She had been studying his reaction and when he turned her way she merely smiled lightly, nodded and pointed towards the dancers. This seemed to coincide with the beginning of a drumming sound coming from a dark corner of the cave – “boom ba-da-ba-da-ba-da boom ba-da-ba-da-ba-da” thronged the rhythm. There also began a new movement in the dance, where all five of the participants turned their backs to a different part of the technicolour wall with their arms outstretched towards the middle. Their murmuring became louder and unified. They were chanting as one: “RAA-KOOR-GARN! RAA-KOOR-GARN!”

“Five dancers for the five elements,” whispered Jenna into Boon’s ear. He utterly failed to understand what she meant but did not question it.

Soon, coloured light from the walls began to beam gently into the dancers foreheads. As this happened, the dancers continued their swirling and manoeuvring, and the five sources of light mingled with the lifeforce energy of the five dancers. As the intensity of the light increased about the aura of each of them, it began lightly to beam from their heart chakras into the middle of the circle. As the beams met, the light took on form – more and more complex shapes arose and the etheric swirls of colour became more solidified – one could see people, buildings, spaceships – and all the time the three dimensional picture was becoming more clear. The only thing Boon had ever seen like it was those 3D holographic adverts you get in the street. It was exactly as if the cave was showing a film, using the dancers as projectors.

Agape with wonder, Boon stared pointedly at the image in the centre of the circle. Firstly it showed a space satellite, tumbling over itself slowly. The view of the image moved around so as to show its position, in orbit around what Boon thought to be the moon. Next there were people in a remote village – in India, maybe – loading brown sacks onto a truck. Next, a newborn baby being injected with some fluid in a needle. Some men in a plush office high up in a skyscraper. The view showed the men’s view out of their window, over a huge city that Boon did not recognise. It showed also their faces which were gnarled, angry and very intelligent. Then there was a moving image of an ordinary street scene – all sorts of people milling around at their business, cars on the roads and in the air, except suddenly about half of the people dropped down to the floor as if dead. Their faces were full of anguish and screaming pain, yet whatever had caused this happened so quickly that there was not enough time for the screams to come out of their mouths. Cars crashed as their owners perished in this horror. Sirens and alarms wailed everywhere. Survivors filled the air with screaming panic and confusion. This last image stayed with Boon until the end of his days. He was horrified.

“They have asked the crystal cave a question,” whispered Jenna to him, quietly. “This is the answer. I do not like the look of it. I guess that you also do not. The members of the ritual will explain the meaning to us afterwards. They will understand the images as the cave does.”

Gradually the clarity of the pictures subsided, leaving the image of one poor woman’s face – who had just watched her husband suddenly perish – as the last picture to leave them. The beams of colour returned into the auras of the five dancers, and they then turned to face various parts of the cave wall before beaming the colour back at the crystal. This process took a few minutes; as it was going on, the drums slowly quietened down and the five dancers began to look visibly more relaxed. Finally, when all their bodies had stopped glowing, as one they got down on their knees and prostrated before the crystal walls in a gesture of humbleness and thanks.

The drums stopped. The ritual was over. No one spoke for a couple of moments, then all of a sudden, Paul rose from his bowed position and addressed Boon chirpily as if nothing was unusual.

“Shane, how are ye mate, good ter see yer oop an’about. This is ar mate, Anzir. ‘E’s a bit southern but e’s alright.”

The other man in the ritual rose just as quickly, walked over to where Boon was sitting and shook his hand warmly.

“Owright me’ol’mucka!” was his colloquial greeting.

Boon was silent, merely staring at Anzir with mouth wide open in suprise.

“Cat got yer tongue, eh? Oh,” Anzir began, hesitating as if trying to work out why Boon was silent, “Oh, that!” he concluded, gesturing with one hand behind him, vaguely in the direction of where the ritual had just taken place. “Freak you out a bi’eh? Daahn’t let it get ter yer. Looks like fackin’ mumbo jumbo ‘ippy shit, bu’ iss jus’like telly really, when you get used t’it, ‘cept it tells the truth, ha ha! You fancy a cappa tea?” 

Homeopathy

System of complementary healing where substances are diluted to a huge extent then given as medicine. The substances are typically (but not always) poisons such as arsenic, foxglove and snake venom. The principle is that the essence or character of the original substance is retained in the solvent (usually water or alcohol) when the liquid is diluted (or “potentised”) and shaken (“succussed”). Substances that are insoluble in water are first mixed with lactose powder and ground with a pestle and mortar for a wrist-aching three hours, in a process called trituration. The practitioner can then potentise and succusse, safe in the knowledge that the trituration has made bugger all difference to the solubility.

Homeopathic medicines are prescribed, (by practitioners who train for years and have exams and certification before being allowed to practice), for a large range of physical and mental ailments, including shock, apprehension, fever, pleurisy and psoriasis.

Speaking purely in the realm of modern chemical understanding, homeopathic remedies are diluted so greatly as to render the probability of one molecule of active ingredient being present as distinctly unlikely. In other words, scientists reckon that there is nothing but water in one of those little bottles. Ideal, say the health and safety people, since prescribing of the original substances, that were used to make the original solution, would involve mass poisoning on a global terrorism scale.

This begs the question of how homeopathy works. Some homeopaths, when asked how it works, tell you that the essence of the medicine is retained by the water. A typical conversation with one of these people follows:

“So, how is the essence retained?”

“Water is the universal solvent. It has spawned life. It remembers what has been in it, that's how it can retain the character of a medicine without the molecule being present. It is far more intelligent than you or I.”

“So how is the essence retained?”

“You do not listen. The water has a memory.”

“Science does not really have an answer to how this works. According to science, a homeopathic remedy contains nothing at all but the solvent. Scientists can only speculate as to how the character of a medicine can be retained by water that it has been in. What would you say to that?”

“It is not a question of science. Homeopathy is a holistic subject. Its answer lies not in rational thinking but in a spiritual, compassionate and round-thinking view of the patient.”

“The goal of science is to understand all phenomena in the universe. Why shouldn't that include medicine?”

“Science is limited. It can only explain certain things. Taking a holistic view of the world, one can expand ones perspective and perceive more about the universe....”

“The process of diagnosis and selection of medicines, surely that process involves scientific, rational thought? Surely if you renounce science then you are shooting yourself in the foot? And surely there is no homeopathic remedy for that?”

“You take a patient history and consider current symptoms yes, but this, I insist, is a holistic approach!.....”etc.

The problem with this whole argument is that the homeopath refuses to accept that there might be a rational, easy to understand answer to their art. If there were, it would take away the mystical idea that people have about homeopathy being this amazing exotic force. These type of homeopaths do not want there to be an explanation because they enjoy being wishy-washy and hippified.

More honest homeopaths will explain that they do not know the mechanism by which it works, but point to numerous satisfied customers who have been healed by it's practice, and their hope that it is better understood in the future.

Some more imaginative scientists propose that the so-called memory displayed by water in the homeopathic process, could potentially be explained by the notion of short term cohesive structures that form in liquid water in a very small time scale: water molecules clump together into all manner of shapes, driven by the forces of hydrogen bonding, but also influenced by substances dissolved or suspended in it. The fluid dynamics of water are still poorly understood and there is not the technology to prove or disprove this hypothesis.

Some less imaginative scientists think that homeopathy can best be summed up using the term “hippy bullshit.”

Despite all this, many thousands of people in the UK visit homeopaths regularly for all sorts of complaints, and much holistic healing ensues. The sceptics point to numerous studies that disprove, using clinical trials, the healing benefits of the drugs, but this information is ignored by followers of the practice, who point instead to healing, ancient vitalogical recipes, holistic perspectives of the self, and yoghurt.

One other thing about homeopathic practice, that you need to know before trying it out – a homeopathic remedy will provide medicine for the higher self of a person. The healing and nurturing needs of the higher self are usually in common with those of the conscious, everyday self. This, in itself, is a great thing and is how most complementary medicine works. It aims to heal the whole person and not just the current symptoms.

The only problem with this is when the person is close to death. At such times, the higher self and the physical body can be in conflict. The remedy can cause the physical self to pass on, such that the higher self, or spirit, can be free of the shackles of the physical realm.

Put in non-yoghurty language, if you take a homeopathic remedy when you are close to death, this means that the remedy can kill you. When visiting a homeopath, make sure you ask them if this might happen with your particular medicine. I have heard that they are sometimes prone to not telling you otherwise.