Doug, you;'re in a state of denial. Let's review some hypotheses and assumptions.
1. In regard to "modern" scientific inquiry, we may be in agreement that such methodologies are quite limited in scope, since there are vast bodies of phenomena beginning with simple psychic experiences that most people "believe" are true based on subjective experiences and the testimonials of others. This body of "unproved" phenomena extends into such areas as crop circles, alien appearances and abductions, cattle mutilations, Big Foot sightings, etc, and ultimately, the ME. ... 2. Most profoundly and of great importance, is the nature of Gnosis (Self-knowledge of the Atman leading to complete Brahman realization). We can go back to the early Gnostics to see how this as a Movement gradually gave way to Dualistic dogmatic religion. In the 20-th century prior to WWII, there were minor revivals such as the "I AM Movement". After WWII, we have Yogananda, Kirpal Sing, Eckankar,, etc; but most important, MMY. Ultimately, we come across (through subjective experience,) the Self - Purusha and find a true Paradox: The Self (Purusha) is indeed "experiential" but purely so, and as such, is not by It's very nature objectively provable or demonstrable to others. Thus, in terms of the ongoing evolutionary development of mankind (Cf. MMY, Eckart Tolle, and others); the hypothesis has been promulgated that the long term "Salvation" of individuals and of mankind is innately connected to Gnosis, rather than the dogma of belief systems and dualistic religions. Thus, the only way to "prove" Purusha is to experience It for yourself; and a tipping point in evolution will occur when vast numbers of people simply "overpower": those endowed with dualistic perception alone. This is the hypothesis of Tolle's "Heaven on Earth" concept. When large numbers of people are Self-aware, such Gnosis will simply take it for granted as being an intrinsic part of life, having no need for "modern science" to prove It's existence as the basis of reality. 3. OTOH, the ME is a SHAKTI-basic phenomena. Among those practicing TM for any significant length of time, a type of perception awakens in which Shakti as a subtle type of energy creeps into overall awareness, with a "Shakti-meter", allowing people to discriminate between various people and places radiating that Energy. In a sense, Shakti can be considered a subtle type of "field". Thus, the TMO's use of the term would be appropriate. 4. Unfortunately, at this state of modern scientific inquiry, there's no empirical evidence for the existence of . higher dimensions beyond our materialistic, naturalistic world. The fact that may people have experienced contact with Angels, the dead, and interdimensional phenomena is a moot point. Such personal testimonies maketh not what's acceptable as "science". If this were the case, nut cases claiming Alien abductions and others such as Scientologists AND the TMO would (and have!) attempted to make a spurious and dishonest claim for their own versions of what "should" be the true post-modern science. 5. Factually, we are dealing with MODERN scientific methods, not such futuristic model of what science "should" be like. If that were not the case, the TMO would (and does), have their own make-believe version of science, the Scientologists theirs, and the UFO-ologists theirs.. Do I "believe" in the existence of Angels, interdimensional entities, and Aliens, as well as very common psychic experiences. Yes! But all such beliefs are moot. There must be agreed-upon ground rules for exchanging information that conforms to accepted "rules" of science. Do I "believe" that the ME exists? Yes, but ..... 6. There's no objective way in modern science to measure the magnitude and range of the ME; and indeed, there's no SCIENTIFIC evidence for the existence of Shakti. This fact alone invalidates all of the MUM research involving the ME, since the ME is a Shakti-effect, NOT an actual Meissner-effect. The Meissner effect involves a real, observable form of material Shakti. The ME is based on an ONOBSERVABLE (but feelable) form of Shakti not even recognized to exist by modern science. Beyond this fact alone, all other considerations such as data analysis become secondary. Since the TMO can't prove the existence of the subtle Shakti, the whole hypothesis of ME becomes completely unsupportable 7. The MUM work fails to have adequate controls. The results are not a binary choice between such effects and "random" possibilities, but rather the influence of the SHAKTI vs other possible influences. Anybody can with equally (and nonsensical) validity - claim that such effects were due to Benjamin Creme's "Maitreya" or perhaps the Scientology God. Due to the unfathomable nature of karma, it's not possible to isolate individual effects from the complete Totality of existence. The causes likewise likewise can't be isolated. Whose to say that the prayers coming from Christians are not responsible. Why not the countless Pundits in India in thousands of sects, doing their Pujas and Yagyas? The idea that the TMO can isolate both the causes and effects with precision, from the Totality of existence, and then claiming that their statistical data proves such a relationship is totally preposterous!. 8. If the existence of subtle Shakti has been corroborated by scientific methods, please give the citation. If no such evidence an be provided, the proponents of such "field" effects have no foundation for their claims. WIKIPEDIA:. Robert L. Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park, research professor and former chair of the Physics Department at the University of Maryland, called the study a "clinic in data distortion".[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin#cite_note-Park2000pp29-31-14 In 1994 a science satire magazine, Annals of Improbable Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_Improbable_Research, "awarded" Hagelin the Ig Nobel Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize for Peace, "for his experimental conclusion that 4,000 trained meditators caused an 18 percent decrease in violent crime in Washington, D.C."[34] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin#cite_note-34[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin#cite_note-35
