Sure, Brian. The information came from “The Field” by Lynne McTaggart, Harper Collins, New York, NY. 2002. pp. 154 – 156; and from “Physics of the Soul,” by Amit Goswami, Hampton Roads Publishing, Charlottesville, VA. 2001. pp. 35 – 40. The second experiment is described in Goswami’s book in some detail; it is also referred to in McTaggart’s work, but I can’t find the page number at the moment. And, in fact, when writing that post, I copied and pasted a chunk from my current book, so I suppose I could cite ME! I agree that EM phenomenon are grossly underrated in studies of human physiology. I also agree that EM fields theoretically have no end and extend throughout the universe. However, classical physics now sees all energy exchanges in terms of particle transmissions (with the possible exception of gravity, which is a bending of space-time, but even there it’s possible to describe effects in terms of “gravitons.”) Such particle transmissions are limited by the speed of light. The key factor in long-distance EM effects is, of course, the inverse-square law, with EM fields becoming rapidly so weak that any effect they have on a target is completely swamped by nearer, stronger fields. The recent QED experiments suggest that distance is NOT a factor, nor is shielding. Some even suggest that the speed of light is not a factor (I believe that was demonstrated by the Italian proof of Bell’s Theorem as few years ago.) Quantum nonlocality seems to be the only way to account for this. Re. Kirlian photography, I’m not familiar with Watkins/Bickel’s book, Bruce, but I’ve heard this argument elsewhere. I do NOT believe Kirlian photography represents the aura or psychic potential, necessarily, but it seems to be more than a function of skin conductivity. I’ve seen Kirlian photographs of a cut leaf and—I believe it was a salamander that was missing a tail. In both cases, the missing part was clearly outlined in light. This appears to be a common observation with Kirlian technique and is not explainable by moisture on the subject. Other studies show intense bursts of energy from a healer’s hands and fingers when he exerts his will. Now, I concede that those moments could include an increase in moisture on the skin—maybe. (I notice nothing of the sort when giving Reiki, but perhaps the effect is vanishingly small subjectively.) Another study of the healing phenomenon—again, this is the McTaggart book—put healers inside a faraday cage with sensors on the subject and on the wall. The recordings demonstrated that bursts of electricity—sometimes over 60 volts—were emitted by the healers’ bodies while they were giving treatments. These bursts did not correlate with any movements or special efforts, but did appear related to their mental focus during the session. My guess is that the Kirlian photographs, in this instance, are recording a genuine increase in electrical potential or current NOT associated with skin conductivity or other background test conditions. At the very least, sweaty hands are not the sole factor here. And, finally, to get back on The Fool’s topic. There is a genuine danger in the redefinition of terms to conform with the perception of objective reality. By redefining the answer to a question, we risk losing track of the original question. For example—in the history of alchemy, the original stated purpose was to transform base metal to gold. Along the way, this was redefined as meaning a quest to transform the alchemist himself. Eventually, today, the redefinition stated that alchemists were only interested in transforming themselves psychologically, and that the lead-to-gold bit was purely to enlist the financial support of kings and princes. There’s a lot of truth in that. Modern alchemy, certainly, focuses on psychological transformation, using various terms and processes derived from Medieval writings as metaphor. But we shouldn’t forget that, on an objective historical basis, the alchemists WERE, for the most part, trying to turn lead into gold! A number of recent authors have tried to state that, similarly, all magic is aimed not at effecting objective change in reality, but in psychologically inducing subjective change or in effecting personal psychological and emotional transformation. Poppycock. Most magical systems of which I have any knowledge do emphasize the need for first effecting transformation within the magician, true, in order to make the magician a clear channel and to determine his “true will,” to use Crowley’s term. But the effects they seek—promoting prosperity or bringing in more money, healing, changing the weather . . . these are primarily objective physical effects. True, they can have psychological aspects. By increasing my confidence I can subliminally affect other people, create an air of prosperity, and thereby create more opportunities to make more money. But . . . what of the various studies at hospitals that demonstrate that magical healing practices, prayer, distant healing, and other improbabilities have tremendous, demonstrable, and measurable effect? In most such studies, the patients and the attending physicians and nurses were not aware they were part of an experiment, so psychological factors could be ruled out. And yet the “treated” subjects time after time showed fewer post-op infections, shorter recovery time, less use of pain medication, fewer return visits to the hospital, fewer doctor visits, less time on ventilators, and a greater degree of subjective feelings of health and well-being when compared with control groups. You’re right. There IS no difference between the effects of pagan practices and prayer. They both work, and they’ve both been experimentally verified! A number of studies have been conducted purely with Christians and the physical effect of prayer. Others have emphasized New Age techniques, or a mix of the two. No difference! As to the part about moving mountains . . . well, magical effects work through natural processes. Answered prayer and answered magical ritual, more times than not, manifest themselves through what appears to be coincidence. There also seem to be several governing laws of an almost physical nature at work. The degree that a magical outcome is successful seems to depend: On the amount of energy expended [which includes the skill, focus, desire, belief, and number of the magician(s).] On the time allowed for the outcome to be manifested. In other words, the better-trained and focused you are magically, the less time it takes to effect a given physical outcome. The less trained and focused, the more time required. The bigger the effect in physical terms, the more time AND effort is required. I’ve never known anyone to move a mountain magically. I HAVE known people who moved small objects through focused will and intent. I would not say that it was impossible for a magician (or for prayer) to move a mountain given sufficient power, skill, and time. Of course, I’d also have to wonder—and this could be seen as ducking the issue—why I needed to move a mountain in the first place. Simply to prove that it can be done doesn’t seem like reason enough to expend that much effort! Creating physical magical effects is extraordinarily draining. I hate to think of what shape I’d be in if I DID manage to move one! It may be fair to say--albeit a bit simplistically--that to move a mountain with magic would require the same energy as it would to move it with dynamite and bulldozers. I say "simplistic" because there are so many twisty angles to the question. For example . . . if I try to move a mountain with magic, maybe I just up and levitate it . . . yeah, right . . . but maybe, too, the energy I exert somehow influences a decision made in a corporate boardroom somewhere to buy that patch of land and bulldoze it flat for a shopping mall. Coincidence? Or magic? Ah, but there's another reason NOT to want to move that mountain in the first place! We have way too many malls, and not nearly enough mountains!