There does seem to be a body of anecdotal evidence pointing towards some kind actual happening "outside what we know" for phenomenon like the "kundalini" effect, however I don't see how the mechanism of action could be quantum in nature. That is, I suppose, not saying much as I don't see how it could work in any case, but I think more exploratory work does need to be done. Then again, I don't really know and if anyone does know of any scientific studies on kundalini phenomenon, I'd love to read about them.
There's a body of anecdotal evidence for anything you can imagine, that's we don't value anecdotal evidence once we've looked for real evidence and not found it. Most people are greatly confused by the placebo effect, it is the source of all these anecdotal experiences.
i think there are studies on the much broader range of phenomena associated with meditation in general. its hard to find good examples of such things quickly with google though because there are a large number of poor quality studies too...
i don't think its particularly crazy to suggest that people practising mental discipline can alter their minds or perceptions.
its very easy to convince oneself that the left arm is paralysed for instance... or to hallucinate by fixating on an object or point in space.
also, its very well evidenced that psychology has an effect on health...
on the other hand there is no evidence of, nor any need for explanations involving, "mystical energies" of any kind, as far as i can see.
anecdotal evidence is evidence, its just not of a good quality.
a lot of things rely on it for their justification. the best example i think i can give in the context of wanky hipster startups would be "agile methodologies"... despite the completely different area of concern they are also attributed properties which are inherently difficult to measure and perform experimentation with. i've seen very little evidence except for anecdotal evidence to back the claims surrounding them (although certainly, they are based on quite reasonable conclusions to reach with no evidence at all - by using logic and "common sense" to derive from better known quantities)
i'd say its often too wooly to even call a single data point, but in other cases its obviously very many.
if 1000s of people are telling the same story, thats 1000s of potential data points... they lose value from being ill defined rather than being small in number.
> if 1000s of people are telling the same story, thats 1000s of potential data points... they lose value from being ill defined rather than being small in number.
reply
They don't exist in isolation though. If thousands are telling the same story and there is no independent corroboration then it's more likely that one person told a story and thousands repeated it.
