Pagliaro, Mandolesi, Paren, Marconi, Galli, Sireci and Agostini
Several studies have highlighted how bio-photons emission can be considered a reliable indicator of the status of health or illness of a living being. Further evidence show that this emission can be regulated through meditative practices. e current paper reports a rst observational case study which intends to demonstrate the possibility of intentionally transfer energy from an individual to another and that the process can be recorded using appropriate speci c tools.
An expert therapist used a Tibetan meditative practice called TsaRlung on a healthy participant, who volunteered to the study. e session was recorded using two highly speci c recording devices, the FAST video- camera and the FUTURA camera. e recording was performed under temperature and humidity controls. e background was measured in the empty room and with the therapist and the participant had not come into contact prior to the meditative session. At the same level of cameras’ sensitivity, the images were showing regular images with no signs of unexplained photons.
Frames from the active session show di erent steps of a shi of energy from the therapist to the participant.
Evidence from this rst observational case study, which shows the existence of an energy in form of bio-photons emission intentionally created and then transferred from a human being to another one, presents strong incentive to set up more challenging and tightly controlled studies.
Gioacchino Pagliaro, Paolo Pandolfi, Natalina Collina, Giovanni Frezza, Alba Brandes, Margherita Galli, Federica Marzocchi Avventuroso, Sara De Lisio, Muriel Assunta Musti, Enrico Franceschi, Roberta Degli Esposti, Laura Lombardo, Giovanna Cavallo, Monica Di Battista, Simonetta Rimondini, Rosalba Poggi, Cinzia Susini, Rina Renzi, and Linda Marconi
The Tibetan medicine tradi on considers Tong Len medita on an essen al therapeu c tool that can be used for self-healing and/or to heal others. To date, scien c papers have not yet inves gated the distance e ects of Tong Len medita on performed by a group of meditators upon a group of pa ents a ected by cancer-related anxiety, depression and stress. So far, some studies revealed the existence of distant healing e ects when there are empathic connec on and deep acquaintanceship between healers and recipients . This research, by contrast, inspects the presence of a distant psychological healing e ect without any empathic bond between meditators and pa ents. The present paper is a double- blind randomized controlled trial on 103 cancer pa ents (7 males and 96 females) that are receiving treatment at the Oncology Department of Bellaria Hospital (Bologna, Italy).
Abstract For at least 30 years cancer has been defined as a genetic disease and explained by the so-called somatic mutation theory (SMT), which has dominated the carci- nogenesis field. Criticism of the SMT has recently greatly increased, although still not enough to force all SMT supporters to recognize its limits. Various researchers point out that cancer appears to be a complex process concerning a whole tissue; and that genomic mutations, although variably deleterious and unpredictably important in deter- mining the establishment of the neoplastic phenotype, are not the primary origin for a malignant neoplasia. We attempt to describe the inadequacies of the SMT and demonstrate that epigenetics is a more logical cause of carcinogenesis. Many previous models of carcinogenesis fall into two classes: (i) in which some biological changes inside cells alone lead to malignancy; and (ii) requiring changes in stroma/extracellular matrix. We try to make clear that in the (ii) model genomic instability is induced by persistent signals coming from the microenvironment, provoking epigenetic and genetic modifications in tissue stem cells that can lead to cancer. In this perspective, stochastic mutations of DNA are a critical by-product rather then the primary cause of cancer. Indirect support for such model of carcinogenesis comes from the in vitro and vivo experiments showing apparent ‘reversion’ of cancer phenotypes obtained via physiological factors of cellular differentiation (cytokines and other signaling molecules) or drugs, even if the key mutations are not ‘reversed’.
Apart from simplistic and very diverse pictures of God that all religions give for popular appeal, at the esoteric core, all religions agree that apart from material interactions, there is another agent of causation in the world; and this is what they call God. Religions also agree that apart from the material level of reality, which we experience outside of us, there are other subtle levels of reality that we experience when we look inside. Religions also agree about a third very important aspect of divinity: We must try to manifest divine qualities—love, beauty, justice, truth, and good, for example—in our lives. When not so long ago, the philosopher Nietzsche declared, “God is dead,” he was lamenting that the popular religious renditions of God are so simplistic that they can no longer guide people to move toward Godliness. This is true. Yet to this day, many scientists beat a dead horse by trying to disprove the popular pictures of God. This is beating around the bush and not at all useful. The real questions, and these are all questions of science, are: (1) Is there causation in the world apart from material interactions? (2) Are there subtle non-material levels of reality? And (3) is there any scientific justification of ethics, which compels us to pursue Godliness in our lives? Most scientists today squarely say “No,” in answer to these questions because they contradict their metaphysics of scientific materialism according to which there is only matter and its interactions, nothing else is real. In my book, God Is Not Dead, I give answers also, and they are all in the affirmative. Yes, there is God. Because (1) there is an agent of causation apart from material interaction; (2) what we experience internally are subtle non-material worlds; and (3) not only should we pursue Godliness in our lives, our evolution is taking us toward better and better manifestations of Godliness. In my book I back up these assertions with both scientific theory and empirical evidence. Believe it or not, one of the most well known mathematical equations of science proves the existence of God if examined within the new context that we have set. It is called the Schrödinger equation named after one of its discoverers, and it is the fundamental equation of quantum physics. Physicists apply this equation for the study of many objects and many events; under these circumstances, the equation predicts (statistically) deterministic results and so most physicists miss God in the equation. The right question to ask is how does this equation apply to a single object in a single event, as it must? You see, the problem is that the Schrödinger equation depicts objects not as “determined things” of Newtonian vintage but as waves of possibility for consciousness to choose from? How do we know this? Because whenever we look at a quantum object, an electron for example, we don’t see possibilities—an electron in different places all at once—but an electron in one actual place, an actuality. So we must be choosing where the electron actualizes!
2 Let’s go deeper. If we (our consciousness) are able to convert possibility into actuality, our consciousness cannot be a brain product or any other material object since all material objects obey quantum physics and must be possibilities only. So consciousness as a nonmaterial agent of choice is a causal agent! Have we discovered God? No, say the scientists, and they are right up to a point. The above raises the paradox of dualism if we think of the choosing consciousness or God, an agent separate from us, as popular religions do. To see this, ask the simple question, how does a nonmaterial God interact with the material world? It can’t without a mediator. But a mediator signal requires energy. And the energy of the physical world is a constant; energy never passes from the material world to a God world and vice versa. In the esoteric core, the masters of the various religions understood the situation perfectly. God is not separate from the material world, they declare at various places, times, and cultures. God is both transcendent and immanent. But what do they mean? Until recently, scientists and ordinary people alike, have not been able to penetrate the wisdom of these words. So scientists ignore them and ordinary people go on thinking about God as a dual agent of causation. Proper understanding of quantum physics resolves the logjam. The quantum concept that is truly radical and that is changing our world view is called nonlocality—signal less interaction. Matter consists of waves of possibility within consciousness, which is the ground of all being. Consciousness chooses one facet out of the multifaceted quantum possibility wave and converts possibility into the actuality of that chosen facet, but there is no dualism because consciousness does the choosing nonlocally without signal. It is choosing from itself. Is it like Waiting for Godot: We have been looking for God and it is us? It is each of us who chooses his or her own reality. Alas! This, too, is too simplistic, which is why your wishful thinking about manifesting a BMW for yourself does not usually work. There is a paradox here. Suppose you and your friend are approaching from perpendicular directions a “quantum” traffic light with two possible facets, red and green. Being busy people, you both want green, but who gets to choose? If you both get to choose, obviously there would be pandemonium. Or perhaps you are like the Hollywood woman who meets a friend on Sunset Boulevard and takes her to a coffee house to “catch up.” Over coffee, she starts talking and after an hour says, “Oh my God, I have been talking about myself all this time. Let’s now talk about you. What do you think of me?” To this woman, the only consciousness in the world is hers, and she is always the chooser. Such people are called solipsistic. But solipsism is obviously not the answer to our paradox. It has shifted the question, “Who gets to choose?” to, “Who gets to be the solipsistic head honcho of the situation? No more than that. The paradox remains.
3 The authentic solution is this: The choosing nonlocal consciousness is not us in our ordinary ego, but a “transcendent” consciousness that is both us and beyond us, both transcendent and immanent. Makes sense, doesn’t it? And more. This nonlocality of our choosing consciousness is an experimentally verifiable idea. In fact, this nonlocality has been verified by five different experiments by five different groups at five different laboratories all showing the direct transfer (without signals) of electrical activity from one subject’s brain to another when the subjects are correlated through meditative intention. This is reported in God Is Not Dead. So the scientific evidence for God and God’s causal efficacy is already here. The evidence is definitive because nonlocality can never be simulated by material interactions that always occur via the intermediary of signals. This is not the only evidence. God’s choice is creative and manifests in our creative experience through discontinuous quantum leaps akin to electron’s leap from one atomic orbit to another without going through the intervening space. Creative experiences are subjective, you say. Not when such leaps heal a person from a life threatening disease, a phenomenon called quantum healing for which plenty of evidence exists. Objective evidence for such creative quantum leaps also show up in biological evolution and explains the puzzling phenomena of the fossil gaps (or missing links) which Darwinism cannot explain. How about subtle bodies? If matter consists of waves of possibility for consciousness to choose from and conscious choice leads to our experience of sensing, then it makes sense to posit that our internal experiences are also due to conscious choice from subtle domains of quantum possibilities. As the psychologist Carl Jung first codified, we have four kinds of experiences: sensing, feeling, thinking, and intuiting. In this way there must be four different compartments of conscious possibilities; the physical we sense, the vital energies we feel, the mental meaning we think, and the supramental archetypes—love etc.—we intuit. The empirical evidence for subtle bodies abound in health and healing, in dreams, in the phenomenon of biological morphogenesis, in survival after death and reincarnation, just to name a few. Again, scientific evidence for God is already here, so what should we do about it? For one thing, we should take the religious masters seriously and pay attention to ethics. The values—love, beauty, justice, truth, and goodness—that ethics talk about are what we intuit. And plenty of evidence exists (for example, in the phenomena of dreams, creativity, and reincarnation) for the importance and validity of ethics as discussed in God Is Not Dead.
4 And more. When we recognize that Darwin’s theory of continuous evolution is incomplete and complement it with the creative discontinuous quantum leaps, we discover an astounding thing. Biological evolution’s direction from simple to complex organisms can be explained. We evolve from simplicity to complexity to be able to manifest our experiences of the subtle domains of possibilities better and better. In particular, right now we are evolving toward manifesting better and better Godly qualities. Someday, said the Jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin, we shall harness . . . the energies of love.” Teilhard was right. That day is not very far away. In his private life, Goswami is a practitioner of spirituality and transformation. His forth coming book, The Everything Answer Book: How Quantum Science Explains Love, Death and the Meaning of Life will be published by Hampton Roads Publishing Company in April 2017.
Quantum physics is the most successful paradigm of physics ever discovered. All scientists follow it in their practice of science because they have to in order to make predictions. And yet most scientists avoid acknowledging certain embarrassing principles of quantum physics that squarely contradict science’s cherished worldview and exclusive attitudes against the refined aspects of the human experience. Quantum activism is an activist movement designed to use, instead of hide, the weird quantum principles that upon closer examination are seen to have transformative value for our societies and us. Human civilization is in danger. Our social systems are breaking down—capitalism, democracy, liberal education, health care and nutrition, religions, all are in crisis. Civilization is in danger because the pursuit of meaning and values that it is based upon are no longer deemed important by the metaphysics/worldview that most scientists subscribe to—scientific materialism according to which everything is matter and material interactions. Through material interactions (upward causation), elementary particles of matter make a hierarchy of conglomerates: atoms, molecules, cells, and the brain. This is an exclusive philosophy; meaning and value are at best secondary epiphenomena of the brain along with the mind and consciousness of which they are attributes. Civilization is in danger because the religions, which heretofore have been the upholders of meaning and values, support a scientifically untenable philosophy—dualism. According to religions, values are imposed upon us by a nonmaterial God’s downward causation acting as a behavioral master of rewards and punishments. But if that is so, God and the material world need mediator signals to interact and that involves energy transfer between the two worlds. But it is a verified scientific fact that the energy of the material world alone is always a constant. Of course, science may not have the ultimate authority to settle the worldview question. So the religions are far from conceding their case, simplistic as it may be. The battle of the two worldviews—scientific materialism and religious dualism—has led to a worldwide polarization among people. The net effect of this polarization is a pervading avoidance of change, change that can save civilization, change that is urgently needed that can lead us away from this divisiveness to inclusivity, integration, and progressivity. It is convenient for the followers of both scientific materialism and religious dualism to maintain the status quo to retain the current power structure, but the truth is that recent developments in quantum physics are clearly demonstrating the scientific inconsistency of the materialist worldview as well. And more. Quantum physics is guiding us toward a new integrative science with a non-duality idealist worldview (monistic idealism) that includes both science and religion in its essence—spirituality.
Here are the most fundamental aspects of the new science and monistic idealism:
Consciousness is the ground of all being.
Manifest actuality is preceded by possibilities—quantum possibilities. Conscious choice converts possibility into actuality. Since this choice is exerted from a non-ordinary state of consciousness “higher” than our ordinary ego, we call it downward causation. We will refer to this higher consciousness as quantum consciousness; esoteric spiritual traditions refer to it as God; but rising above the dualist populism of religions, these traditions have long been able to conceptualize non-duality in the way that quantum physics is leading us to. Within one undivided consciousness, there are four worlds of quantum possibilities wherefrom, via downward causation consisting of conscious choice, come all our experiences: the material world that we sense, the vital world whose energies of movement we feel, the mental world that we think and process meaning with, and the supra mental world of (Platonic) archetypes—truth, beauty, love, goodness, justice, etc. —that we intuit, that give us values.
Conscious choice precipitates the collapse of the multifaceted quantum possibilities in each domain to become actuality. The multiple parallel worlds do not directly interact; consciousness mediates their interaction through simultaneous choice and collapse (change) of possibility into actuality. Collapse is nonlocal meaning that it requires no interaction, no communication involving the exchange of signals. Non-locality is signal less communication taking place “outside” of space and time. Quantum consciousness is nonlocal, choosing from itself, from its own possibilities. Nonlocal consciousness mediates the interaction between the different worlds that are said to be “correlated” or thus “entangled.” Collapse is discontinuous. Before collapse, quantum possibilities, waves of possibilities really, reside in transcendent potentia, outside space and time. Collapse changes the waves into immanent particles in space and time. Do you see why discontinuity must prevail? How else can you depict “outside” space and time? If “outside” space and time were continuous with what is inside space and time, we could just expand the boundaries and include it, couldn’t we? The word transcendent reminds us of both non-locality and discontinuity. In transcendent potentia, consciousness remains undivided from its possibilities, and there is no experience. This is what is called unconscious in depth psychology. Collapse produces “dependent co-arising” of an experiencing subject and an object that is experienced. The subject is not a mere artifice of language. Subjective experiences often have the causal power of downward causation behind them. Creativity is fundamentally a phenomenon of quantum consciousness discontinuously manifesting really new (previously unmanifest and unconscious) facets of possibilities from the transcendent to the immanent domain. Now you see why in ancient traditions, creativity is seen as a divine attribute, which we can have only as God’s gift.
Even in this brief introduction, you can see how this new science integrates science and
spirituality—the essence of all religions. In this way we can begin the age of post- secularism in which religion (which is not necessarily scientific and therefore had better
be kept separate from the affairs of the state) and spirituality (which is scientific and therefore can be supported by the state) must be distinguished. Having potential access to the causal power of freedom of choice and creativity, we can emphasize new change and creativity along with the exploration of what is known in our education system. Being able to include meaning, values and feelings at equal par with physical sensing, this new science also opens the door to an integrative approach to the crisis problems endangering our civilization. We need to make the crisis areas our arena for quantum activism.
Why Quantum Activism? We need quantum activism because scientific materialism has become entrenched in a power politics that defy change. Changes can come if we not only use the quantum principles to change ourselves (which is similar to doing spiritual practices) but also to
change our society. Spirituality without social responsibility will not do in this twenty- first century.
Ivana Buric, Miguel Farias, Jonathan Jong, Christopher Mee and Inti A. Brazil
There is considerable evidence for the effectiveness of mind–body interventions (MBIs) in improving mental and physical health, but the molecular mechanisms of these bene ts remain poorly understood. One hypothesis is that MBIs reverse expression of genes involved in in ammatory reactions that are induced by stress. This systematic review was conducted to examine changes in gene expression that occur after MBIs and to explore how these molecular changes are related to health. We searched PubMed throughout September 2016 to look for studies that have used gene expression analysis in MBIs (i.e., mindfulness, yoga, Tai Chi, Qigong, relaxation response, and breath regulation). Due to the limited quantity of studies, we included both clinical and non-clinical samples with any type of research design. Eighteen relevant studies were retrieved and analyzed. Overall, the studies indicate that these practices are associated with a downregulation of nuclear factor kappa B pathway; this is the opposite of the effects of chronic stress on gene expression and suggests that MBI practices may lead to a reduced risk of in ammation-related diseases. However, it is unclear how the effects of MBIs compare to other healthy interventions such as exercise or nutrition due to the small number of available studies. More research is required to be able to understand the effects of MBIs at the molecular level.
Avijit Banik 1, Deepika Kandilya 1, Seshadri Ramya 1, Walter Stünkel 2, Yap Seng Chong 3 and S. Thameem Dheen
It is well established that the regulation of epigenetic factors, including chromatic reorganization, histone modifications, DNA methylation, and miRNA regulation, is critical for the normal development and functioning of the human brain. There are a number of maternal factors influencing epigenetic pathways such as lifestyle, including diet, alcohol consumption, and smoking, as well as age and infections (viral or bacterial). Genetic and metabolic alterations such as obesity, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), and thyroidism alter epigenetic mechanisms, thereby contributing to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDs) such as embryonic neural tube defects (NTDs), autism, Down’s syndrome, Rett syndrome, and later onset of neuropsychological deficits. This review comprehensively describes the recent findings in the epigenetic landscape contributing to altered molecular profiles resulting in NDs. Furthermore, we will discuss potential avenues for future research to identify diagnostic markers and therapeutic epi-drugs to reverse these abnormalities in the brain as epigenetic marks are plastic and reversible in nature.
Eva Steliarova-Foucher, Murielle Colombet, Lynn A G Ries, Florencia Moreno, Anastasia Dolya, Freddie Bray, Peter Hesseling, Hee Young Shin, Charles A Stiller, and the IICC-3 contributors*
Summary Background Cancer is a major cause of death in children worldwide, and the recorded incidence tends to increase with time. Internationally comparable data on childhood cancer incidence in the past two decades are scarce. This study aimed to provide internationally comparable local data on the incidence of childhood cancer to promote research of causes and implementation of childhood cancer control.
Methods This population-based registry study, devised by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in collaboration with the International Association of Cancer Registries, collected data on all malignancies and non- malignant neoplasms of the CNS diagnosed before age 20 years in populations covered by high-quality cancer registries with complete data for 2001–10. Incidence rates per million person-years for the 0–14 years and 0–19 years age groups were age-adjusted using the world standard population to provide age-standardised incidence rates (WSRs), using the age-speci c incidence rates (ASR) for individual age groups (0–4 years, 5–9 years, 10–14 years, and 15–19 years). All rates were reported for 19 geographical areas or ethnicities by sex, age group, and cancer type. The regional WSRs for children aged 0–14 years were compared with comparable data obtained in the 1980s.
Findings Of 532 invited cancer registries, 153 registries from 62 countries, departments, and territories met quality standards, and contributed data for the entire decade of 2001–10. 385 509 incident cases in children aged 0–19 years occurring in 2·64 billion person-years were included. The overall WSR was 140·6 per million person-years in children aged 0–14 years (based on 284649 cases), and the most common cancers were leukaemia (WSR 46·4), followed by CNS tumours (WSR 28·2), and lymphomas (WSR 15·2). In children aged 15–19 years (based on 100 860 cases), the ASR was 185·3 per million person-years, the most common being lymphomas (ASR 41·8) and the group of epithelial tumours and melanoma (ASR 39·5). Incidence varied considerably between and within the described regions, and by cancer type, sex, age, and racial and ethnic group. Since the 1980s, the global WSR of registered cancers in children aged 0–14 years has increased from 124·0 (95% CI 123·3–124·7) to 140·6 (140·1–141·1) per million person-years.
Interpretation This unique global source of childhood cancer incidence will be used for aetiological research and to inform public health policy, potentially contributing towards attaining several targets of the Sustainable Development Goals. The observed geographical, racial and ethnic, age, sex, and temporal variations require constant monitoring and research.
Funding International Agency for Research on Cancer and the Union for International Cancer Control