BlueSpike

We know that the placebo and nocebo effects work. So I don't see why it isn't possible for the brain to produce bruises, bleeding, swelling, blisters etc in response to dreams, if the brain is convinced it's real For example there was a Japanese study where poison ivy was placed on a blindfolded person's arm - they were told it was harmless nothing happened to their skin But then they put the harmless plant onto their skin, telling them it was poison ivy They developed hives! I'll quote the study later, but a quick search will bring it up ''poison ivy nocebo effect''

How do you know it's not the case? The mind can affect the body in strange ways. For example, a hypnotist can actually make physical blisters appear on a person's skin, by merely suggesting it. The blisters via hypnosis is very famous, I advise you look into it. This happens without any physical action. All it takes is the person to be hypnotized and then the hypnotist tells the person they've been burnt by something.

unconscious (not aware of) self-mutilation (hurting one's self) through (by the method of) abnormal autosuggestibility (the brain is abnormally responsive to psychological suggestions, so it causes a physical wound to appear)

''A psychoanalytic study of stigmatic Therese Neumann has suggested that her stigmata resulted from post-traumatic stress symptoms expressed in unconscious self-mutilation through abnormal autosuggestibility.' That line says stigamata can be caused by the mind. This means the brain has the ability to physically rip apart the epidermis and dermis, to allow blood to flow out the skin.

And how do you self-inflict burn wounds when you're asleep, and correlate them to the area you were burnt in your dream? Also stigmata proves this. Stigmata would be a form of telekinesis since it would involve the mind separating and tearing the epidermis and dermis from the other skin layers. So dreams also cause this rare telekinesis in humans? Interesting.

for example how do you explain burn marks appearing on the body when the person dreamt of being burned? theres nothing in a bed which can burn you. the mind causes burn marks to appear in response to the perception of a burn?

But there's something called the nocebo effect. I don't see why the mind couldn't produce a bruise in response to a dream of being hit with a stone. Thats how the nocebo effect works - the brain thinks the body is injured or being injured, so it causes those injuries physically, even if nothing physical is going on.

Well, it appears dreams are real.

But the physical injuries were consistent with the object that hit them in the dream. Look up ''nocebo effect'' I think this is similar

Has there ever been a study to confirm this? It seems similar to the ''nocebo'' effect. Your thoughts? ''There are a lot of stories floating around out there about people who experienced an injury in their dreams and then found real, physical evidence of the wound on their bodies once they awoke. For instance, some people have claimed to have been caught in a fire in their dreams and then woke up to find burn marks on their skin. Other common stories involve people being attacked during their dreams and then waking up to find scratch marks somewhere on their bodies. However, most of these stories are found in chat rooms or message boards, so it’s hard to corroborate if they are true.But, there is one well documented case, reported by famed psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, about an Indian man named Durga Jatav who, during a battle with typhoid fever, had an extremely vivid dream about being held captive in another realm. To keep him from escaping, his dream captors cut his legs off at the knee. Unfortunately, his legs were already severed by the time the captors realized they had the wrong man and didn’t need to keep Jatav after all. When Jatav asked how he could leave with no legs, they offered him several pairs of legs, he picked out his own pair, and then they were miraculously reattached. While Jatav was having the dream, his body became very cold and at one point his family thought he was dead, yet he revived a few days later. Once he was awake, his sister and neighbor noticed deep fissures around his knees that weren’t there previously. X-ray photographs showed no abnormality below the surface of the skin, which led Jatav and his family to believe the marks came from his dream experience. Dr. Stevenson met Jatav some 30 years later (1979) and took pictures of the still visible scars. Although Stevenson did not witness the event, he apparently believed the story, which was confirmed by all involved, and he even included the account and photographs in his book “Reincarnation and Biology: A contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects.” Obviously there’s no scientific proof to this intriguing account, but it’s not too far-fetched considering what we already know about the power of the brain over the body.' 'Edward Kelly and his co-authors in their book Irreducible Mind refer to a couple of incidents[1]. The first story was reported in the nineteenth century in the book Influence of the Mind on the Body written by an English physician, Daniel Hack Tuke. It concerns a man who dreamed that he had been hit on the chest by a stone and woke up to find a bruise on his chest. Here is the account from Tuke’s book:In the Bibliotheque choisie de Medecine, by Planque, tome vi. p. 103, is the following case: A man, thirty years of age, healthy and robust, saw in a dream a Pole with a stone in his hand, which he threw at his breast. The vivid shock awoke him, and then he found that there was on his chest (dans le même endroit) a round mark, having the appearance of a bruise. Next day there was so much swelling, etc., that a surgeon was requested to see it, who, fearing a slough, scarified the part, and relieved it. The wound healed in a short time. Without more definite information, it would not be safe to build a theory upon this case, but looking at the previous one of the spectre, and others equally well authenticated, there appears no reason to doubt that the dream and the inflammatory action of the skin stood in the relation of cause and effect. [2]'' The third story comes from the Aurobindo Ashram and was reported by Amal Kiran (K.D. Sethna), a disciple of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. His wife Sehra woke up after a nightmare and was found to have sustained injuries which seemed related to her dream. This is the account as given by Amal Kiran:The time was a little after 2 a.m. on 19 December 1978. I happened to be awake in bed. In the bed across the room Sehra started moaning very piteously. I thought she was doing so in sleep, as on some occasions she had done during a nightmare. As she went on moaning, I spoke loudly to her and then got up and touched her so as to rouse her from sleep.She answered: “Someone has attacked me with a stick and beaten me on my head,” I said: “It’s only a bad dream. Don’t worry.” But she complained of severe pain in the head and shouted to our servant Lakshmi who was sleeping in the next room. I said: “There is no need to wake her. Tell me what you want.” She went on shouting for Lakshmi. I called out also and Lakshmi came in.Before this I had switched on the light. When Lakshmi came, I pulled back from Sehra’s head the counterpane which had been over it. The sight before our eyes was horrible. Above the upper ridge of the left eye there was a huge ugly lump and a swelling along the bone between the eye and the ear. In the middle of the lump was a point where the skin seemed slightly abrased: it was a reddish spot as if the stroke of the stick had especially fallen there.What we saw was unbelievable. How could a beating received on the head in a dream have such a strong physical effect? I have read accounts in journals of occultism in which people getting hurt in dreams showed visible marks. The Mother (Mirra Alfassa) also has in one place spoken of the body showing signs of mishaps experienced in a dream. But never had I witnessed such a consequence and never could I have imagined that so concrete and severe an injury to the body might appear as the result of a nightmare.If I had not been absolutely sure that Sehra had not got up and fallen somewhere, I would not have believed a nightmare had hurt her so grievously. But here was no room for doubt. She had not got up at all after she had been to the bathroom just before retiring at about 10.30 p.m. on the night of the 18th. Besides, if she had fallen in the bathroom or on the way to it or back from it she-would have cried out from that place and not from under her counterpane in bed. I could at once have known — and so would Lakshmi or her daughter who early that night had been sleepless and later asserted that she had not heard Sehra go to the bathroom any time after 10.30 or so. Again, our bathroom door creaks very loudly whenever opened or closed and is likely to wake up anyone who is not too heavy a sleeper. It is quite certain from my own evidence as well as from that of others that the terrible hurt was received during a nightmare.…While drinking her coffee, she recalled that she had started dreaming of going to meet the Mother(Mirra Alfassa). Before she could proceed she was crossed by some being and dealt a blow with a stick. The blow was aimed at her head and meant to break it. Somehow it was diverted to the area of the left eye and it landed on the temple above it.The enormous swelling subsided just a little during the day by getting spread along the temple, but the entire part round the eye became a deep blackish red and the skin below the eye was puffed up. (It took Sehra nearly seven weeks to get back to normal.)The whole event proves how dangerously one can be attacked by a hostile force in one’s sleep. One must always call the Mother’s protection and be on guard even in a dream. People have got up with pain in some parts of the body — e.g. the abdomen — after a nightmare. I was myself once attacked during one of my out-of-the-body rambles several years ago and the sensation was as if the spine had been smashed. But there was no physical injury left. Sri Aurobindo in Savitri has written of how a spiritual worker in the subtle world.

The ''Wick effect'' does not cause one to burn from the inside-out. The Wick effect causes burns that go from the outside in. Frank Baker and Jack Angel survived SHC to tell you they burnt from the inside out -- as their doctors had concluded.

It doesn't matter if the cell dies. That isn't the point. The enzymes would STILL mix with the substrate and produce phosphine regardless of if the cell is alive! Also, I'll copy/paste what I JUST said: It doesn't matter if the mutation would be bad in the long run or that it wouldn't last long. That isn't the point. You might as well be concerned for the long-term effects of passengers on a plane whose wing has just broken off. It wouldn't matter because they'd be a fireball pretty quickly. All it would take is one mutation to produce this enzyme. It wouldn't need to be passed on to other cells. It would only need to mix with its substrate to produce phosphine and if the cell were close to the skin the phosphine would seep out the skin and trigger an igniting spark because phosphine spontaneously combusts on contact with air. I will not repeat myself again. Clearly you paid no attention to my diagram.

Phosphine production would be lethal but what I am saying is that it would lead to SHC. It doesn't matter if the mutation would be bad in the long run or that it wouldn't last long. That isn't the point. I advise you look at the diagram I drew, I don't think any of you are understanding this fully. Just because SHC has not happened in front of someone at a lab, does not mean it has not or cannot happen. There is too much circumstantial evidence to just dismiss SHC entirely and remain open-minded.

I have read replies they are not good. because it is possible for the enzymes and the substrates to be completely separated between organelles because substrates and enzymes cannot pass the cell membrane passively. so if those organelles are broken down then the substrates will flood out and the enzymes will flood out and the enzymes and the substrates can go and react. think of a spaceship engine - they design 2 containers - one container contains an oxidizer, the other an easily-oxidized substance that violently reacts with the oxidizer. there's a vent in the spaceship with allows the contents of these two containers to mix. which powers the spacecraft. the biological situation is similar to the one with the spaceship. I just drew a picture to help you guys visualize what I am talking about.

There would be an ignition source - for example, a rapid accumulation of phosphine, or an oxidizing metabolite such as hydrogen peroxide. Oxidizers can cause things to spontaneously burn...even underwater

''Mutations are not magic. They do not allow cells suddenly to overcome biochemical limitations nor can they override biology '' elaborate please?

but the substrates could be separated, eg. the phosphate AND the other substrate could be contained in the mitochondria, while these mutant enzymes remain in the Golgi, and build up. This would mean the enzymes and the substrates would be separated from each other by the membranes. If that cell were to undergo apoptosis then those organelles would break apart allowing those enzymes to suddenly meet the substrates and if there happens to be a high concentration of both enzyme + substrate it would be like putting magnesium metal into acid - you'd get phosphine very fast. enzymes work very very fast. You could have as much phosphate as is possible if the proteins that transport phosphate into the cell and the organelles was messed up. We are talking about mutant cells afterall.

I'm not sure, if there were lots of enzymes then wouldn't the reaction just go by quicker? since there's a higher chance phosphate would collide with one of the enzymes if the enzyme were at a higher concentration. there could be an over-abundance of phosphate limited to the mitochondria or some other organelle which has a membrane to prevent things from moving in and out. or one of the two substrates needed for this enzyme to produce phosphate is locked away in the mitochondria only (phosphate + the other substrate) but the enzyme cannot get to that substrate combination because the mitochondrial membrane is in the way. then the cell could enter apoptosis where the mitochondria and the golgi break apart so the enzyme can go and meet the substrate. about 1% of the cell is phosphate. and that is the normal concentration, so it can be even higher. phosphine at 1% is sufficient to explode and cause an igniting spark if it seeped through the skin

But the mutant enzymes that do produce phosphine could accumulate in the Golgi, if there are no instructions to place it anywhere, since the enzyme is mutated so the Golgi may not recognize it's there. Then, the Golgi could break apart during cell division, and assuming we had a large over abundance of phosphate + (other substrate) we'd get a very sudden, high production of phosphine. It only takes 1% concentration of phosphine for it to be explosive. (source Wikipedia) Also, the Wick Effect cannot explain the recent case of Frank Baker, where his doctor had concluded it burnt from the inside out. He is a survivor of SHC, and has a witness. there is a documentary on his case. The wick effect does not cause one to burn from the inside-out, as described in the case of Frank Baker.

I just offered a scenario involving the production of phosphine from mutant enzymes, a gas which spontaneously combusts upon exposure to air and would ignite after diffusing out of a persons skin. I would like to hear your input on it.

Here's a scenario I would like your input on. What if there was a mutation that meant the cell started producing an enzyme which converted phosphate (+ some substrate) into phosphine (a gas which could seep out the skin, and it spontaneously combusts, its a very unstable gas when exposed to air)? The phosphine-producing enzyme could be kept in the golgi apparatus, so numbers of it could build up there. For some reason the golgi apparatus breaks apart (happens for several reasons including cell division) and then these enzymes can then react with the phosphate and other molecule to produce phosphine. If there is also an abundance of the two needed chemicals then it would produce phosphine in high concentration very fast. It is known that phosphine is produced by anerobic bacteria. Phosphine is one explanation for SHC that hasn't been looked into. I can't see any problems with that theory.

water doesn't matter. a radiator contains water (steam) on the inside but the heat is conducted to the metal, and the metal isn't covered with water so if you were to put paper on the radiator it would catch fire. if a bunch of cells heated up to 500+ C and they were close to the skin, it would still set the skin and clothing alight, regardless of whether the heat originated underwater. this is especially true if the heat arose very suddenly and rapidly not giving enough time for the heat to be dispersed Frank Baker did not mention feeling any heat before he combusted so this further supports the theory that the production of heat is so rapid it isn't felt before flames appear on the body.

That doesn't explain the case of Frank Baker. A man famous for surviving Spontaneous Combustion who was in the headlines a few months ago. He (Frank) said the doctor said that he'd burnt from the inside out. theres a news article in the Huffington Post on him. according to a newer version of the documentary the commentor admitted that both he and his friend who witnessed it refused a polygraph test

a person on a social forum told me how his aunt actually survived spontaneous human combustion he said how he was there when he saw the flames appear on her and how her doctor then concluded it was coming from her cells and he diagnosed her with spontaneous combustion. he said she didnt smoke, swears on the truth, and ended the thing with 'science doesnt explain everything' ... he then said something about reactive gasses and chemicals building up in her from a bad diet caused her to start flaming up from the inside. I recall that he mentioned the production of reactive chemicals or gasses. i tried to question him , but then he questioned me if i had a PhD like the doctor who diagnosed her to challenge the diagnosis of flames from the inside out . what do you think? it seems that SHC is actually a valid medical diagnosis if doctors have diagnosed patients with burning from the inside out, on multiple occasions there was a man in the news recently, named frank baker. he says he survived shc and his doctor confirmed it was cellular in source -- that he had not been burnt from an external source but an internal source. he was interviewed in a TV documentary a couple of months ago..