LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • double2 (edited 4 years ago)
    @spaceghoti -

    I don't know what peer reviewed research you'd need for saying "these glands are what are considered the chakras". I don't really know what you're asking people to prove here... I think wires have been crossed somewhere.

    This page is the kind of description I was working off. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the function of these glands was originally studied by civilisations that included the idea of chakras within their cultural spirituality, thus driving their medical investigation. This was why I was of the understanding that the idea of chakras was in its basic form a scientifically reasonable idea. However reading up on this, it appears that that idea is speculative and could be a ret-con of sorts! :) Also, I enjoyed reading this thread on my searches. I have a feeling that the conversation of chakras is a far more charged/exploited concept abroad than in the uk where it's always seemed quite innocuous to me.

  • spaceghoti
    @double2 -

    So basically, you're talking about the sort of thing that /u/hallucigenia already pointed out is highly questionable rather than verifiable knowledge. The relationship between chakras and glands is purely speculative rather than something we can say with high confidence to be true.

    • double2
      @spaceghoti -

      Yea, I'm conceding the point! I don't think I understood the full connotations and claims to the purpose of chakras. I'd agree with the point made in the thread I linked, that the most reasonable understanding of what they would be in reality is a mnemonic type device for use in meditation, and since effects of meditation are unquantifiable for the most part, it'd be unreasonable to claim that any supposed link between chakras and glands is anything more than a placebo effect.