How to See Your Aura
Is aura photography actually possible, and does it tell us anything useful about the person?
Filed under Alternative Medicine, Paranormal
| Skeptoid #75 November 20, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 75, November 20, 2007
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4075
Today we're going set up a special camera and view a mystical energy field surrounding your body that's normally visible only to certain sensitive people. Our subject today is aura photography. A listener from Chile wrote in with the following account of a late-night infomercial aired on Chilean television:
"There was a guy, by the name of Harold Moskovitz, giving a show entitled “Desarrollo Luz Dorada”, or “Golden Light Development”. He was claiming to provide all sorts of healing through esoteric ways such as reading ones aura and then providing techniques for resolving problems found within it. Basically the show was claiming to provide relief for pretty much any aliment, and all one has to do is attend a seminar or two, paid of course, in order to learn the mystic ways. He had numerous people swearing to have been cured of various serious ailments, and one woman even held up an x-ray of tumors she had that were now magically cured! Chile is a fine country but it does have a significant number of people that do not have access to a decent education or health care and this con man is basically telling them he can cure cancer."
Well, there's nothing new about psychics claiming to see your aura. What's missing is any kind of a half-decent explanation for what this aura supposedly consists of. It's really easy to throw around scientific sounding terms like "bioelectromagnetic fields" or "life energy", but such terms do not have any legitimate meaning. We have to ask some basic questions. Does this thing called an aura really exist? Does it convey any useful information about the person? How might it be possible that some people can see it or sense it, while others cannot?
To answer the first question, do auras actually exist, we have to abandon untestable verbal claims from psychics who say they can see them but offer no evidence, and look instead to testable evidence. Namely, aura photography.
There are three types of aura photographs. The first, which is sometimes seen in video and is usually in color, is simple infrared photography. To take an infrared photograph with a conventional film camera, simply use infrared sensitive film. An infrared photograph shows heat. A shot of a dead object at room temperature appears black or at the same color as the general background, but a living person or other warm object appears white, or in a color video, at a warmer temperature. Charged particles near the skin surface, or near the surface of any warmed object, are excited by the radiated heat and will appear as a glowing band around the person or object. Simple heat does not have any of the mystic qualities attributed to auras, and can be produced equally dramatically with any dead object if you just warm it up.
The second type of aura photograph is called Kirlian imaging. It's named for Semyon Davidovich Kirlian, the Armenian electrician who discovered it in 1937, though it didn't really become popular in the world of aura enthusiasts until the 1970's. Kirlian images of auras are all black except for the aura itself, which is manifested as a thin band of jagged white surrounding an object. To take a Kirlian image, the subject to be photographed is placed on a photographic plate which is electrically isolated above an aluminum electrode. Another electrode is connected to the subject, and the resulting image is thus burned onto the photographic plate. Kirlian described this as "bio-plasma", an image of what he called the "life energy" of the object. Scientists call this effect a corona discharge, and you get the same result using any conductive object. It does not have to be alive; a coin will work just as well. Corona discharges have been well understood since the 1700's, and they have nothing to do with "life energy" or the psychic state of an object.
Finally, we have the latest, greatest, and stupidest of aura photography techniques, which was developed in 1992 by an electrical engineer named Guy Coggins, and is called the AuraCam 6000. This produces brightly colored pictures showing the person with superimposed brightly colored clouds of light around them. To take an AuraCam picture, the subject sits and rests his hands on the leads of a galvanometer, the same device that Scientologists call an E-meter. The AuraCam takes a conventional photograph of the person which is loaded into a computer. The computer software then synthesizes an image of colorful clouds said to be based on the galvanometer measurement. This colorful halo is then superimposed onto the image of the person, then it's printed out, and presto, you have your mysterious aura photograph. According to Coggins' web site:
"Our technologies produce an electronic interpretation of what we believe the Aura would looks like. It does not photograph the actual Aura. There's nothing that exists which can do this."
And how about those colors? How are they determined? Coggins actually gives several different answers on his web site: that the colors are determined by corresponding electrical frequencies; that the colors were chosen in consultation with psychics to produce the same colors seen by psychics; and that they are based on the writings of Dr. Max Luscher, correlating personality with color preferences. I guess you can take your pick of how you prefer to believe the colors in your picture were determined.
To Coggins' credit, his web site is very clear that these images are not suitable in any way for making medical diagnoses, and that they only represent the software's interpretations of the galvanometer reading. He is also very clear that these devices are primarily for making money taking pictures at fairs, and he provides pricing guidelines and lists of events where you might choose to take your AuraCam. I wish that all peddlers of pseudoscience were that honest. Joe Nickell wrote an entertaining account of having his own picture taken at a psychic fair with an AuraCam in Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
So an examination of aura photography reveals no useful, testable evidence that auras even exist at all. If we can't establish any reasonable foundation of evidence that they might exist, it's premature to address our second question, whether any useful information can be derived from studying auras. So let's look at our third question: How might it be possible that some people can see auras?
Nobody has ever suggested a plausible mechanism for how such a thing might be possible, but if it is, there's a big fat chunk of dough sitting there waiting for anyone who can do it. James Randi has a million dollars in his vault that's yours if you can see auras. Nobody has tried since 1989, when the prize was only $10,000. On the TV show Exploring Psychic Powers Live, a psychic claimed that the auras she could see stretched five inches beyond the person, and that she could see the aura extend beyond the top of a screen that a person was behind. Ten screens were presented, and by prior agreement between her and Randi, she needed to score 80% correct predicting which screens had a person behind them. Random guessing would have resulted in a score of 50%, but she scored only 40%.
Can you or someone you know do better than that? If you can, Skeptoid can qualify you to apply for the million dollar prize. Just come to the Skeptoid.com web site and click on the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
Since that highly publicized failure on live television, author Robert Bruce, in his book Auric Mechanics and Theory, has taken the classic step of moving the goalposts. He states that auras cannot be seen in complete darkness or if any part of the person emitting the aura is obscured. This special pleading presumes that auras have some quality that places them on a higher plane than what might be testable using basic blinded experiments. So what it all boils down to is that the only supporting evidence for the existence of auras is the logical fallacy of special pleading that claims they are beyond the threshold of detection for anyone except self-described psychics whose claims must be allowed to be untestable.
Well, that's bogus, and it's childish. If Robert Bruce had anything in his book that could withstand any kind of scrutiny, he could easily be a million dollars richer. Until aura advocates make some kind of reasonable, quantifiable description of their phenomenon, any discussion of auras — including their photography, their meaning, or their paranormal detection — should be treated with extreme skepticism.
© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Cytowic, Richard E. Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses - Second Edition. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2001. 34, 50, 163.
Loftin, Robert W. "Auras: Searching for the Light." Skeptical Inquirer. 21 Sep. 1990, Volume 14, Number 4: 403-409.
Nickell, Joe. "Aura Photography: A Candid Shot." Skeptical Inquirer. 1 May 2000, Volume 24, Number 3: 15-17.
Randi, J., Clarke, A.C. An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1997. 21, 136, 166.
Stenger, Victor J. "The Physics of 'Alternative Medicine' Bioenergetic Fields." The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. 1 Apr. 1999, Volume 3, Number 1: 1501.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"How to See Your Aura." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
20 Nov 2007. Web.
23 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4075>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 122 comments
"Remember that mind defines the reality and think about so many minds that define the reality in so many different ways depending on their own understanding."
And that, FG, is one of the very best statements I've seen on Skeptoid.
It is mind that perceives, interprets, and "knows".
It is mind that created the scientific method.
The scientific method requires proof to those who follow science.
The trouble is, as I've said before, that mind formulates the rules of science, but then often judges everything else outside science based on those same rules.
It can become, in a scientists mind, another belief system based on rigid experimental and repeatable proofs, just exactly the right thing for the study of nature and all its processes, but limited in its ability to comprehend or even contemplate events outside its scope.
Strange when one observes so many scientists who have religious beliefs that are remote from, and outside their workaday scientific disciplines
Science to them is created by God, with no scientific proof.
Here we have a scientist (and let me say right here that despite my jibing, I believe Mud certainly is) prepared to disparage anything that resembles etheric/aura vision, in fact anything outside his belief system without a second thought.
Especially when I have taken pains to explain that my recommendation to those who are interested, to train to view the "etheric", is without any pretense of scientific proof or experimentation whatsoever.
Macky, Auckland
April 15, 2013 9:20pm
I'll wrap this all up to your satisfaction and the subsequent burning of the offending coffee table soon.
As to your question, believe it or not, you have answered it to your satisfaction on at least three occasions.
I take it the experiment in the cupboard showed you, your effect was due to visible light and the way you are viewing it and not your fist, coffee cup, fishbowl, wife, dog, sheep, horse and duck.
Yes, your brain is insensistive to light. Your "mind" is a concept.
Your eyes however..
Thanx for te continuing Mud commentary, I feel as if I am in your computer room every night.
Please dont take these thoughts to bed. I am allergic to lanolin.
As to dismissal of woo? Ive spent a long time examining woo for he very reason that the woo pervades the people I grew up with.. Read their books and know when one is lying.
Mud, Pho\'s Slave palace, Gerringong the Brave, NSW
April 25, 2013 9:56pm
Well I'll say right now that I can't see any glow or "etheric" in darkness at all.
I can usually only see it in strong light, with my hand held up against a dark background. I have seen it around someone's head (purple glow) against a fairly light background, but only once.
It's quite prominent out from the fingertips, and other sighters have reported a sort of swirling as the hands move around.
"Thanx for te continuing Mud commentary, I feel as if I am in your computer room every night."
Yes you often stand behind me and lean over my shoulder to peruse the latest text on Skeptoid, occasionally pointing and commenting.
I can understand your long-standing crusade against what you and others call woo. When one has seen family members and other innocents suffer for their belief in woo, it can make one angry. I'm the same.
Mud, where does your definition of woo start and finish ? Is it really the hard line of scientifically-proven facts and disiplines, or not, that defines your perception of woo ?
Or is it a mixture of the above coupled with the taking advantage of innocent peoples' beliefs for one's own gratification in some way e.g. financial ?
I'm curious because I actually agree with you in many incidences, particularly medical.
But as you know, I also have a belief in SOME complementary practices as alternatives to (say)GP's prescribing psychotropic drugs for common easily-fixed ailments.
Macky, Auckland
May 03, 2013 1:05am
I am repeatedly in awe at the brain freeze of so-called "scientific" thought processes touted as the ONLY truth about LIFE ... that in fact often have very few skills beyond their indoctrination obtained through "accredited" brain washing by Government sponsored educational institutions. If it's NOT credible according to that kind of dictatorial education ... then ANYONE who has experiences OUTSIDE that government sponsored curricula is obviously STUPID, MISLEAD, or just plain DEVIOUS! I seriously believe in attempting to do my best at being "careful", "curious", and in "questioning" EVERYTHING because that attitude is activating personal responsibility for MY life. But let's PLEASE cease and desist with the INSULTING VERBIAGE... especially coming fromMud, Pho\'s Brewery NSW, Oz. NO ONE will take YOU seriously when you insist on behaving like a rebellious teenage BRAT!
PLEASE: Share, question, explain your viewpoint, but at the same time PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL AND DIPLOMATIC ... but Geezzz ... if you can't help yourself go GET A LIFE first! Namaste!!!!
Mary, Colorado Springs
May 10, 2013 9:44am
Well said Mary.
"NO ONE will take YOU seriously when you insist on behaving like a rebellious teenage BRAT!"
I don't know whether anybody has taken Mud seriously for quite a while, now.
I'm still waiting for his honest description of what he saw (in his own words) when he "saw it immediately", that is, tried my instructions out for viewing the "etheric" glow around the fingers/hands.
You are right Mary. Be careful, be curious, and question EVERYTHING, yes even entrenched beliefs, official stories, and anything else that masquerades as "irrefutable fact".
Macky, Auckland
May 10, 2013 5:09pm
Macky, as promised I will finished this fairly soon..with your method, explanation and further experiments..
But the above is priceless and saved for future reference.
As to the requoting of the Mary post, Macky, I am glad you associate yourself with that sort of response. It just makes things easier to explain to you in future.
On etherics, you are a fraud seeking credibility from a 1985 coffee table book.
Note, neither in the last paragraph is ad hominem or "name calling".
Magnanamous Dinoflagellate, sin city, Oz
May 19, 2013 11:19am
I don't particularly associate myself with any response, Magnanamous Dinoflagellate, Mud, Moral Dolphin, Henk, Honk, Whatever Your Name Is Today.
I've even agreed with you on a number of occasions.
"On etherics, you are a fraud seeking credibility from a 1985 coffee table book."
Since you keep on insisting about this "1985 coffee table book", why don't you name the book so we know what you are referring to ?
I'm not seeking any credibility whatsoever.
All I originally posted was an exercise that anyone who was interested could try, that was never presented as science, or a scientific experiment.
You (Magnanamous Dinoflagellate, Mud, Moral Dolphin, Adonis, Hunk, Whatever) decided to get all steamed up over it, frothing at the mouth and pronouncing scientific opinions such as BS etc.
Whether you believe in the "etheric" glow or not doesn't matter, really. I can see it, and many others can too, and that, in fact, is a fact, matey.
Apart from that, it's been an interesting exercise in just how wound up into a frenzy someone who is a scientist can get, over what is only a trivial case of observation of something most don't see on an everyday basis, and which doesn't really matter a great deal, having only been presented as something that one may try, or not.
What's fraudulent about that ?
Macky, Auckland
May 19, 2013 5:11pm
Wonderful, I'll use all of that eventually.
So, do you have anything to say before I deliver this a little bit earlier than the anniversary"Heretics by the Sea" day.
Frothed up? over someone proclaiming supernaturalism? Hardly..
PS Its your coffee table book, not mine. Should you look through the archives of publications there are three to choose from. Surely it wasnt a pamphlet?
You do know how to search literature after this period on skeptoid?
magnanamous dinoflagellate, Sin City, Oz
May 20, 2013 10:49pm
You're a born twister, matey.
I have never proclaimed the viewing of the "etheric" as supernaturalism.
Where have I ever said it's my coffee table book ? You were the one that brought up the 1985 coffee table book thingy.
I don't have to search any literature on this subject. It was a simple exercise that anyone who was interested could try, if they wanted to.
Now are you going to do something you have never done on Skeptoid since I've been posting here, that is, straighten up and answer direct questions that I've asked you with direct answers, or are you going to continue with your "maundering incoherent style of address" as usual ?
Macky, Auckland
May 21, 2013 12:44pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Thanks Macky... I always try to read the skeptical arguments about auras etc to understand whether I am mistaken, but all of the skeptics provide no conclusive evidence or argument of their own and more often than not appear to be simply scared bullies, like Mud here. If one reads this dialogue one can only discern that Macky's grey matter is a bit faster than Mud's. I am sorry for being judgmental, Mud - it's just that you must either stop a conversation when you do not have any desire to talk to somebody or engage in a coherent conversation if you wish to argue your case and be willing to explore an issue rather than simply insult your opponent. It is for this reason the danger of religion is proliferating in the world: you skeptics ignore something enormous right in front of your nose allowing religions their harmful interpretations. I can go on, but don't have time anymore. Good luck to both in your search for the truth. Remember that mind defines the reality and think about so many minds that define the reality in so many different ways depending on their own understanding.
FG, UK
April 15, 2013 2:28am