Can you actually change the energetic imprint of the mushroom though?
The whole idea of energy transferring through food is based on the assumption that a cook’s mood, state, or energy can somehow alter the food’s energetic structure in a way that’s externally influential.
However, in your mushroom example, the energetic imprint (chemical composition but we can say that it’s energy) doesn’t change. The mushroom stays what it is. What changes is how it interacts with consciousness. Even if someone with powerful intention and Genkidama energy could eat it safely, that wouldn’t show that the mushroom’s energy was altered, but that the person’s own energy and consciousness transformed the experience of it - hence why you used the term “negate the effect”.
That’s the main difference I’m pointing at: the energetic dynamic isn’t being transferred into the food, but being generated and modulated within the perceiver.
It appears to you as such because of the framework you are operating in. From your perspective, from what I can see, no explanation or hypothesis I can possibly give you will be satisfactory until it describes a physical mechanism .
This is not really possible, though. Once you start investigating stuff like this, you quickly realize that this is really going down a rabbit hole, because you need to read and process so many things, question various frameworks, experience different things, just to have the chance to see things from a different paradigm.
Your and Luther’s point is valid. If all influences were equal and random, we could never make sense of anything. But nobody lives that way, and neither does science, or anything before that. Science works by identifying dominant signals amidst the noise. And guess what, any tradition that came before that empirically tested out things over generations has the same goal. They just frame things differently. And because they were not necessarily stuck in an atomistic framework, they sometimes discovered things which are way outside of our dominant paradigm right now.
I did not say that " those who were poisoned/harmed were weak willed." I am rather referring to an active, intentional process of preparation, not a passive state of being a consumer . The cook’s focused intention during cooking is an active force; a person unknowingly eating poisoned food is not engaging in a comparable psychic defense.
I think “will” was a poor word choice. A better way to frame it might be the coherence and quality of conscious attention. What I am supporting here is the observation shared by many over centuries that a person in a coherent, focused, and elevated state can impart a qualitatively different influence on their environment, which seems to include food, than someone who is distracted, hostile, or incoherent. This isn’t about some hocus pocus, but rather about a subtle and not-yet-quantified interaction between consciousness and the physical world. Perhaps they will never be quantified. Just look into how modern science almost entirely relies on quantification, with anything that deals with “qualia”, the subjective quality that we actually hold important in our daily lives, is relegated to very minor importance or even outright denied by some philosophical faculties these days.
The reason my statements might seem “selective” or “empty” from your framework is that this phenomenon isn’t easily reduced to a lab experiment. The phenomena is contextual and subjective, dominant in one situation and masked by louder “noise” in another. The fact that the signal can be drowned out doesn’t mean the signal doesn’t exist. It just means we’re dealing with a complex system which science currently is not prepared to even begin examining properly.
Materialist Science excels at studying objects and mechanisms from the outside, but phenomena like intention and anything related to qualia may require a more phenomenological approach, especially when there is a change in what people perceive as matter.
But there are exceptions already- for example, somewhat related to the topic of the mind influencing matter in the form of food, I think few would argue that Nina Kulagina, the woman that repeatedly demonstrated telekinetic feats to Soviet scientists, who extensively documented and tested her under controlled conditions, is a fraud. But if she did what she did, what does this say about the possibility of these other action at a distance type of phenomena?
Your objection assumes that if a healing system were effective, it would prevent all illness, but that’s not how any healing system—either traditional or modern—works. When I refer to the healer’s “strong faith in his own assumptions,” what I am trying to get at is that faith here is better understood as coherence in your own belief system and that it has to be shared between the healer and the patient. In medical anthropology, it’s well-documented that traditional healing methods often are effective only when both parties genuinely believe in them. Why this is, nobody seems to be able to explain, least of all the researchers from the West. All they can do is note down that it happens. The immediate objection is always coincidence and confirmation bias or placebo- but I’ve seen enough in my stint in medical anthropology to know that there is more to this- hence why I believe that the concept of faith needs to be investigated much more.
And yes, it does relate to the food transference issue in this thread- when you create a double blind study, for example, is it ever taken into account what each individual and the researchers themselves assume about reality and what paradigm they’re in? Nope. They’re treated as participants that somehow be averaged out with statistical means to extract the “working ingredient”.
The point I am making here is that with discussions such as this one, the fundamental gap here is that skeptics demand a type of proof—isolated, repeatable, double-blind—that may be intrinsically ill-suited for phenomena embedded in complex systems that are deeply contextual, interactive, and subjective to a certain extent, but nonetheless real, at least to the people experiencing them.
Factoring in their assumptions of reality goes against the hypothesis though, lol. The claim is that energy objectively transfers into the food and can be absorbed or sensed by other people. This means that it should have an external, measurable influence on someone regardless of what they believe or assume. If the energetic influence is on some level dependant on belief and assumption about reality, then doesn’t that suggest that part of it is internally created?
I’ll be the first to admit from my point of view this discussion has run away from me. You are right that with the framework I am operating in I’ll have difficulty taking what you have been saying without questioning, even though, believe it or not, I want to believe all the way. In fact I was once very interested in the “intangibles” and read a few books and articles (admittedly the concise version) related to what you said. I still pray sometimes. But when it comes to such strong and powerful claims I can’t help but need solid proof and replicable evidences to silent the doubts or questions. What I have been saying with a lot of words and examples is simply this - I agree that what you have been saying is true but in practice to me it means little since there are variables interacting and influencing each other that prevent us from make a clear case. We can talk about how food made with love is healthy or how powerful when a healer’s faith interacts with the patient’s faith all day but if say they don’t heal one’s homicidal tendency or don’t cure rabies what’s the use of them? At the end of the day there needs to be consistent demonstrations or it risks a blanket statement.
I think at this point we may be better to agree to disagree, and I wanna repeat that I do believe in theory, it is the real life application that I find it hard to reconcile the way you and other users take as absolute true with little regard to physical reality.
With phrases like these you can start seeing the problems of perspective that lead to rejection of phenomena for which volumes of anecdotal and even sometimes firsthand evidence exist.
Take for example your use of the term “real life”. By this term you presumably mean, as paired with the term “physical reality”, that material or “physical” reality is somehow more “real” than (a) the subtle phenomenon being discussed or (b) the very consciousness which is participating in and experiencing this “real life”. Of course, “scientists” or some philosophers still like to throw forth the ridiculous suggestion that our ability to perceive and even to be conscious is in fact some epiphenomenon arising solely and exclusively out of matter, but generally these subtle things are classified using the throwaway term “subjective”, as if the unrefined, untrained perception of something using ones nervous system and other senses somehow makes the sensory feedback less real, unreal enough to cast it away as some kind of “projection” or mere imagination.
What we call “real life” however is in fact the true epiphenomena (or emergent phenomena). We call it real because it is seemingly the most unchanging. I punch a table, I break my hand. I stand on the earth and don’t fall through to the other side, I fall at a rate which is constant enough of the time to give a pleasant illusion that we understand the “law” of gravity.
The thing of which you can be most sure, however, as Descartes realized, is that you are aware, and you are aware that you are aware. The perceptions or observations that arise within your consciousness, neurophysiology teaches are just electrical signals interpreted by your brain - in fact the end result of a long cascade of neurons firing that take information and process and store it holographically. These perceptions are as far from the real as you can get. They are just an echo of the thing which is sending out light or sound, vibration or chemical signalling molecules that get picked up by the senses. The observations on which our existing science is based are echoes of echoes of echoes, the end point of light bouncing through a series of fun-house mirrors if you like.
In fact this is precisely where the problems of modern physics come from. The quantum measurement problem, the wave-particle duality. This comes about because the act of measurement is itself an interaction between the measuring instrument and the thing being measured. The problem comes out of the fact that the measuring device is itself a physical object, and in order to measure something, some signal received from the measured object must be transformed by the measuring device into something perceptible on its readout.
When you are dealing with big, bulky things like people or cars or planets, taking a measurement might cause a very small, imperceptible change if any in the object being measured. Measuring the light bouncing off a cue ball will not measurably change its attributes such as velocity, momentum etc.
As you get smaller and smaller, the ability to measure something using a physical measurement device without changing the system being measured gets harder. When you start getting to the very things that make up the atoms of our body, which we often wrongly assume are particles like billiard balls with a well defined location, the assumption of objectivity begins to break down.
Physics has had to work hard to adapt to this fact and is still playing catch up. However now in physics circles it is common to hear people discuss the zero point field, the virtual particle flux, the Dirac sea, where particles seem to pop into existence briefly, often in pairs, only to vanish within fractions of a nanosecond. Moreover, extremely sensitive measuring devices have detected reproducible signals when indviduals successfully remote view or remote influence, often in the form of weak coherent photons at the target location. The presence of consciousness may be measurable, at least in certain conditions.
If we accept the idea that these things we are arguing about are “intangibles” or related to “subtle energy”, it stands to reason that perceiving them is not an easy thing without first refining the faculty being used for observation.
This is precisely one of the goals of meditation and contemplative practices. And the fact is that perceiving subtle realities in ordinary consciousness is kind of like trying to see the stars in broad daylight - yes, they’re still there but they’re drowned out by the much brighter light of the sun scattering the coherent but weaker light of the stars. And even your thoughts and emotions are going to influence the state of the receptor (your physical and energetic bodies).
It’s my hope in writing posts like these not that people take what I say as gospel and believe without question, but rather that taking these hypotheses they test them themselves. I do not write about these things out of some second hand intellectual knowledge, I write about them because I have enough first hand experience of subtle things that I am able to know rather than just believe, and I would expect anyone who wants to penetrate these matters to do their own work to come to first hand knowledge. To believe these things we are referring to are purely psychological is laughable, it only requires a minimum of effort to prove such ideas wrong. I leave it up to the reader.
Do you operate on the principle that for something to be objectively real, it must be observer-independent . Its effects must be consistent, measurable, and automatic, sort of like a chemical reaction or radiation?
Do you envision “energy” as a physical substance that is transferred from A to B, like a particle? In this model, you’d see the receiver’s state as irrelevant, kind of like a rock gets hot from the sun regardless of what it believes.
And if an effect is influenced by the observer’s belief or state of mind, do you categorize it as purely ‘internally created’—meaning a subjective illusion with no external component?
How do you factor in the placebo effect in itself, since it seems to have gotten accepted in the scientific community? A patient’s belief in a sugar pill has been shown many times to produce measurable, objective healing. Is that healing ‘internally created’ then? Sort of, in the sense that it mobilizes the body’s own resources. But is it real ? Absolutely, as measured by existing instruments(such as with cancer remissions). The belief was the catalyst for a physical change.
But from what I can see, you do have conflicting positions:
You say this, but in practice, your arguments consistently defend a different, very familiar material model: a strict separation between an objective external world and a subjective internal mind.
Is your implicit definition of “real” energy here that it must leave a physical, measurable trace that changes the food in a way their materialist framework would recognize. If the food “physically remains the same” (by standard chemical assays), then no “real” energy transfer occurred.
Again, what options do you imply here?
Option A: The food is physically altered (which you imply isn’t happening).
Option B: The effect is entirely in the perceiver’s mind (what seems to be your position unless I am mistaken).
What about a Option C: The food could be altered in a way that is real and perceptible, but not currently measurable by our physical instruments—perhaps in its informational, structural, or subtle energetic state.
I would argue that a change in the “informational” or “holographic” state of the food would be a real change , even if its chemical composition was identical.
But if you insist that the food must “physically remain the same,” aren’t you privileging the materialist view of “physical” over the holistic view you claim to hold.** Are you allowing the phenomenon to be evaluated on its own terms?
Another thing that sticks out in your responses:
So to state your position, you argue that if a person uses intention to survive a poisonous mushroom, it doesn’t change the mushroom but only the person’s experience of it. But let’s be clear: the experience in this case is whether they live or die. This is not a subjective feeling like I feel happy instead of sad. This is a binary, physical, objective outcome according to the scientific view.
To say that consciousness transformed the experience of a lethal poison is to say that consciousness produced a physical, biological change in the body’s interaction with the poison. That would be considered a profound alteration of the physical event, no?
So when you say you are okay with the holographic view of the universe, you’d accept that Consciousness is a fundamental force, and not an epiphenomenon of matter, one that can interact with and rearrange the “energy” and “information” of the holographic universe.
In your and Soulfire’s example of the mushroom, the focused intention of the practitioner did something to the energy of the mushroom-to-body interaction, altering the physical outcome. The dynamic is therefore interactive and objective.
However, the model you seem to be defending seems to contradict this:
You say that the mushroom’s energy is fixed. The person’s consciousness, locked inside a skull, presumably, generated a powerful placebo/nocebo effect that somehow neutralized the poison within the closed system of their own body , without any interaction with the external food. This still requires consciousness to have dramatic physical power, but it seems you struggle with the concept of this power leaving the skull.
By the way, if you look into the Aghora system of spirituality in India, you’ll see systematic ingestions of lethal doses of poison to test their ability to influence what appears to be external. I think most of our confusions seem to stem from this divide between external and internal.
You use the language of a unified, energetic reality, but you defend a model that keeps consciousness in a prison of its own making, only able to look at and comment on a fixed external world, never truly able to fully interact with it.
Did I say that I take this absolute truth?
I am just trying to find models that have greater explanatory power for what I or others experience. The philosophical materialist paradigm which still rules science has already been shown multiple times over(see the works of Bernardo Kastrup, for example) to be of very limited explanatory power- and in science itself, the idea is to discard models of limited explanatory power for those with greater explanatory power, ones that do not require mental gymnastics and appeals to downright magic(see the hard problem of consciousness). The materialist paradigm literally needs to dismiss all accumulated experience of various empirical traditions that predate modern science to feel like it is internally coherent.
But we want something that is less limiting than that, and there are models that can account for parapsychological phenomena- which absolutely need to be accounted for in any honest model of reality - one where consciousness and the world are in a constant, mutual, and objective dance of co-creation—which is what many philosophical and spiritual schools are actually pointing to.
Sigh the more posts I read and replied the most distance I felt. Our point of views are like two galaxies with ever expanding space seemingly among us
I don’t even know how to address your post to begin with. This is why I wanted to keep the focus as the broader the scope the more we dance from one point to another.
I’ll firstly share that I also have first hand experiences of subtle things such as synchronicity and serendipity, and the darker side of how one attracts what one fears with intense emotions/imagination. As said I read about “supernormal” stuff, for example as far as I am aware the remote viewing CIA did, the one they hoped would help them spy Soviet Union, was a big failure.
Then I want to point out the “gap” between me and your standpoint is you and other users kept talking/explaining about the mechanism of the phenomena while I was again and again pointing out I knew and agreed with them but I wanted you to answer how they worked in physical manifestations. Take Gavity as example you could explain it in theoretical physics terms but they were backed up with a consistent physical manifestation, and Gavity precedes the theory, meaning it is here whether we understand it or not. We talked about how energy affected food, again okay theoretically I got it (I don’t know how I could make it any clearer), I then asked how it worked in practice and pointed out how the manifestations were inconsistent. Then this part got ignored and replies once again began to dance around the mechanism of energy. When I said if it worked it worked (as in if it manifested it manifested regardless the theory of the mechanism) I was replied with it took external factors for it to work. Wasn’t it exactly my point about variables mixing with each others?
My original question was how is one able to pinpoint the causation, the implication was if one was able to do so one should be able to replicate or avoid it. But then you pointed out it was a rejection to the phenomena, while from my point of view I was trying to confirm it. As I pointed out I wanted to believe all I needed was to be shown a consistent demonstration cause if it wasn’t consistent what’s there to believe in and what’s the use of it? You wouldn’t jump in to an operation that has only fifty percent success rate (I am guessing feel free to correct me with paranormal data). In fact your loved one wouldn’t want you to take such operation with less than 90+ percent success rate, why would you do it to yourself?
Well for practical purposes, even if food was not cooked with the best of intentions, a simple word of blessing or a quick prayer, has the effect of energetically charging the food in a positive manner.
Why do you think we have traditions of praying before eating food?
To prevent food poisoning since negative energy is too base for it 🫠
Edit: I should take this more seriously but I just feel tired addressing or repeating the same thing over and over. I know the tradition of that but again this reply doesn’t cover the whole spectrum, what about those who don’t pray how do they make it? How about an ill intended person reheating the blessed food and served others? Is it about the intention of whoever last touched the food? Another user pointed out it’s about the energetic strength of the cooker/maker. This is a new variable we now have to take into account. So now we already have three external factors mixing up.
As to the remote viewing thing being “a big failure”, maybe reading the recent post by @SaintSovereign about the events that lead up to them putting together the Remote Viewing X subliminal with RVConsultant might be a good place to start. You don’t put together a subliminal to accomplish something that was a big failure
I pointed out that in order to replicate things, you need to improve the sensitivity of your measuring device. Unless you’re willing to wait a few decades for this stuff to become mainstream, developing your own ability to interact with the subtler aspects of reality is your best bet.
Regarding success rates (for something the private sector has succeeded in measuring but which has not become part of classically taught physics yet), does the fact that you’re likely to fall off a bike and injure yourself multiple times in the course of teaching yourself to ride mean bikes should be considered dangerous or unreliable? Of course not. The same principle should be applied to learning about this topic.
Because every actor in the equation has also free will.
Additionally, one person is not just one actor, but many actors at once: people’s conscious free will is often different from their subconscious mind’s free will.
There is always a process of collective co-manifestation going on that changes by each second because of the many free wills involved.
Free will is also one of several major factors that mainstream psychology has a complete blind spot on.
When Shroedinger did his cat experiment, he forgot that the cat acts an observer of reality too.
Sub Club’s titles are so good at triggering your subconscious mind to manifest stuff and experiences, because everyone’s free will is always respected, and so the universe can operate freely and with the flow.
I have been involved in “magic” for 20+ years and I know people who can literally change matter with their minds.
Usually, it is the people who rationalize everything away as “internal perception stuff” or as “psychological projections” is who haven’t really seen anything really “magical” yet.
Energy transfer through food and other items has been proven many decades ago.
You can check the works of Wilhelm Reich and conduct the respective experiments if you have the time.
I mean, this is super obvious and everyone can experience and test this for themselves through the taste of water. The water remains physically the same, yet changes its taste, its energetic vibration and its Chi amount.
Most people can sense the change in the taste, but not the other two things.
Yes, this can be done, energetically and even with regards to its physical/chemical structure. But requires very advanced skills. Most people wouldn’t be able to change the items physical structure though, and thus it would remain poisonous to the physical structure of the physical body.
Nope. The mushroom’s energy and even chemical composition can be permanently altered for everyone who would consume that mushroom, not just for that one particular perceiver.
Not necessarily.
It is always a co-manifestation in the end, because no piece of consciousness is separate from other pieces of consciousness. Someone with a strong intent can overpower other’s perceptions too, but only if their subconscious mind’s free will first agrees for this to happen.
So yeah, at a purely consciousness level, it is not about the food or energy or matter at all, but all about a collective perception and collective hallucination based on every pieces free will fragment.
But at this final source level, nothing else is “real” in the first place.
However, so far, everything that you have said here, says that you haven’t even started and have not even scratched the surface of the whole energy topic…
Again, just my personal opinion as someone who has been into this stuff for 20+ years.
reheating doesnt add to the energetic intent of the food, it merely reduces it. In my own experience, food from certain restaurants always tasted salty for me, i didnt know why for the longest time, for all my other friends it tasted fine, heck even the waiter said it was good, when i asked him to taste test.
It took me a while to realize it was not the actual food but something else.
The energetic intent is not that strong that it can cause instant harm, but its like this food is not charged up.
if you ever had the chance to drink from a running stream, you will get what i mean. even if the water is boiled and then drunk, it still has more energy than the most pure bottled water.
Like i said in my earlier post its not that big of a deal if you dont notice anything.
Always amazes me how many smart people there are here on this forum, yet those same people completely ignore the fact that Sub Club has released so many “esoteric” titles that go beyond any materialist and mainstream psychology’s point of view.
These smart people act as if these titles do not officially exist in the Sub Club store and they refuse to look into them, let alone use them in the first place
I want to be honest to you that the more I replied the more I enhanced my own point of view due to cognitive closure. I think the best I do is take a break from this discussion, give space and re-read them when my mind has more flexible room to understanding. Thank you all for your posts.
the video is interesting about the power of intuition.
Im from south india, ive seen a lot of kids have natural psychic abilities, but they always forget everything as they grow up.
Also on KB3, QL4, SB, i always get accurate flashes of intuition. The more energy sensitive you get, the more you care about the energy of your food or what not, but yeah a simple prayer or a word of blessing always charges up the food in a positive manner.
Absolutely not. By internally created, I don’t automatically mean that it’s a subjective illusion - it could simply be a real experience with no external component.
Yes, the healing is “internally created”, since the internal belief in the individual is what produced the healing. And yes it’s real, so no disagreement here. I am largely aware of the scientific community’s limited view of the placebo effect.
Sure, let’s explore this thoroughly.
Outside of this, my definition of energy is consciousness - the same with matter. I have posts about this, although they are deleted. Just so we’re clear, my entire stance is specifically based on this specific theory of energy transferring directly into food and being absorbed/sensed by others. I’m not talking about anything else.
When I refer to energy in the context of this discussion, I’m merely going with what the theory itself fundamentally posits, which is energy in the form of negative or positive emotion and intention. For example: The chef is in a really negative and depressive mood because his dog died, and this energy of emotion is transferred into the food itself. Another example is the grandma making soup with an intention of love and care, which transfers into the food itself. Almost all versions of the “energy transfer through food” concept are fundamentally rooted in the emotion, intention, or perceived energetic state of the person creating the food. So when we are talking about energy, we are referring to those things and the transferring of them on some level. They are non-physical. Those non-physical influences can absolutely change the physical outcome of the food. For example: The negative state or mood decreasing their attention to detail in creating the dish resulting in a lower quality finish, or the positive intention of care and love increasing their passion in creating the dish resulting in a higher quality finish. This is energetic influence though - it’s not energetic transference, which is something entirely different. Instead of non-physical energy influencing how the food is created, energetic transference claims that the non-physical energy literally moves into the food, altering it directly, and being able to be sensed or absorbed by another person.
The options that I perceive are:
Option A: The food is indeed directly altered on some level (energetically, structurally, holographically, informationally, etc whatever you want) solely by the chefs energy.
Option B: The effect is entirely in the perceiver’s mind (yes, this is my position).
Option C: A mixture of Option A and Option B
My position as Option B is not dismissing the person’s experience as not real. I’m saying the effect is there and it’s real, but it’s internally created - the same way you just used the placebo and healing example. Does the sugar pill have magical healing properties? Of course not, it’s the power of belief. Same thing here. Claiming that the sugar pill has magical healing properties, is a misattribution of the mechanism actually taking place. Same thing here - at least that’s my personal opinion.
The logical way that you would test this, is the same way you would test the sugar pill. In that example, the result depends on the patient’s knowledge of the pill. In this example, it depends on the eater’s knowledge of the chef. Remove that conscious information, and the outcome changes. This gives a really strong support to the idea that it’s entirely internal.
Yes, I agree but the distinction is that it did something to the mushroom-to-body interaction. The interaction, not the mushroom itself.
So again, it doesn’t contradict it because you’re talking about the interaction and not the energy of the mushroom itself. I said that the consciousness changes how the mushroom is experienced, which is an interaction with it. For you to change how you experience something, is an interaction with said thing.
You seem respectful so let me you know your thoughts, lol.
That’s dope, but what have you personally done though?
Define “being into this stuff for 20+ years”. Is that reading about it from second-hand sources, listening to gurus, exchanging ideas in group-thinks, listening to anecdotal accounts from other people, etc - or is that 20+ years of directly experiencing things first-hand?
It is happening additionally to any of those internal perceptions that you have described.
Not necessarily.
As I mentioned, everyone’s subconscious mind is already aware of what the other party and actors are doing and intending and they just play along with the bigger game.
They do this because there is a type of higher level contract for a concencus reality to be experienced here temporarily in this part of the physical universe.
So this “contract for everyone to play along” does not even apply to the whole physical world.
Which is again the reason why all those blind and double blind studies are just local human made scripted “game events”.
Or in simpler words:
Having conscious information about something can add an additional free will actor to the mix, but in most cases it won’t do much since most other free will actors have already collectively agreed upon the outcome to be experienced.
Or in even simpler words:
Most people have neither energy sensitivity nor any active use of their own free will, and so the rules of the concensus reality apply in most cases while at the same time making people believe that they are observing “universal natural laws” and “cause-effect-reactions”.
All of these. Lol.
You never really grow alone.
And you grow the fastest when you combine all that you have mentioned, and much more.
And to answer your question more precisely:
Yes, that includes 20+ years of directly experiencing things first-hand and on all the possible crazy levels.
