Woman trying to ‘live on light’ instead of food ends experiment

0

Naveena Shine, 65, is the Eastside woman who wanted to test out whether she could live just on sunshine and no food. She’s calling it quits Wednesday, on what would be Day No. 47, after dropping 20 percent of her body weight.


After dropping about 20 percent of her body weight, Naveena Shine, the 65-year-old Eastside woman who got worldwide publicity for trying to just live on light and no food, is calling it quits with her grand experiment.

Monday was Day No. 45 of no food, just water and tea “with a splash of milk.”

Shine had dropped to 126 pounds from her original weight of 159 pounds on her 5-foot, 4-inch frame.

She says she’s quitting on Wednesday in part because she’s run out of money, and part because of the public reaction.

Written By: Erik Lacitis
continue to source article at seattletimes.com

NO COMMENTS

    • Funny that you should mention that. Suing is a possibility.

      If you discard the façade of goodness that cult leaders hide behind then the economics of some religious sects and cults can be quite blunt. Wherever there is a significant and concentrated flow of unearned wealth then there is the capacity to sponsor the political process to ensure the flow continues. Basically cult adherents’ worldly goods are deeded to the church (leaders) as a will. This sometimes creates an unhealthy incentive to promote shorter than otherwise lifespans among adherents, who are responding to their emotional needs to belong to something.

      Same thing is a daily occurrence in the telecoms industry (which has cult-like qualities: based on smart phone and social network self-worshipping and belongingness). Basically carrier network competition drives economic profit to zero, i.e. normal profits instead of monopoly profits. But Telecom carriers depend on supernormal profits and so are continually attempting to promote some kind of additional differentiating attraction beyond just plain providing network services. Which explains the focus on increasingly exotic handsets and subsidies and monthly cost capped plans – but hardly any customers actually pay attention to real value for money, whether the network actually works where they go, the ridiculous fragility of their glass screens, lack of battery performance, and total real costs.

      While carrier network profitability more or less zeros out the purpose of owning or operating a mobile network is to be able to attract customers who are likely to later become disappointed, but only after they have already made a prolonged financial commitment. This trigger occurs via ineffective service, priority call centre queues, incomprehensible invoicing and transaction accounting, and ludicrous roaming charges. The intention is to trigger antagonism in their clients to the point where they quit the service – which then triggers early termination charges. Most people aren’t aware that there may be no legal basis for these charges and just pay up. This activity has become the primary source of many mobile carriers profitability.

      The kinds of clients carriers need to attract to sustain this profitability are essentially stupid and shallow people, but with at least some money. Which explains their ubiquitous marketing promotions. Their products are specifically engineered to appeal to this superficial element of the population.

      Same thing happens with religious organisations. The core beliefs need to be structured to appeal to and enable self-selection of members possessing the important qualities valued by the organisation’s leaders.

      In reply to #1 by Roedy:

      I wonder if she can sue the guy who tried to trick her into suicide.

    • In reply to #2 by Loudguitr:

      I don’t get the money part. I thought not eating is free. Does she get paid to eat?

      She probably got massive electricity bills due to all the light she consumed during that period.

  1. Wow, I must be a “hater” because she is sad old woman with a light fixation. She is stopping because she ran out of money? I would have thought this was the one diet ever invented for which no money was needed. Sunlight is free.

    Of course that splash of milk (which is actually food) must cost money. And why involve the Indians by renaming herself in Hindi. That’s quite insulting to a nation where people actually DO have no money and DO go hungry.

    I am speechless (apart from the above rant).

  2. In reply to #5 by aroundtown:

    She looks a little sad. I hope she recovers without to much difficulty. She is not the first to travel a road that lead to nowhere but hopefully she will build off of the failure and maybe something positive might come from it after all. One cannot fight evolution and the needs that were built in…

    It was not a scientific experiment, but an act of lunacy. Just like one doesn’t need to jump from a cliff to experiment with gravity, or smear excrement on an open wound to test the bacteria ‘theory’.
    .

  3. “I was just asking a question, but there was just so much negative response that that means the question can’t even be asked,” she said.

    She’s still using this bullshit excuse as to why her “experiment” didn’t work rather than just admitting that it was a really dumb idea.

  4. Wow… Let’s be clear here, this woman was attempting photosynthesis, stunning, she has obviously never read biology or chemistry in her life and is also a bit dim. Even plants need nutrients from the soil or from elsewhere to survive, without this the chemical reactions that take place during photosynthesis which enables the plant to make its own food in the form of sugars will not happen. If she read more enlightened scientific material she could have saved herself from conducting a really dumb experiment.

  5. “She says she’s quitting on Wednesday in part because she’s run out of money, and part because of the public reaction.”

    …but NOT because she couldn’t actually live on sunlight. See? It really could be done! ;-)

    Steve

  6. “I was just asking a question, but there was just so much negative response that that means the question can’t even be asked,” she said.

    She also says that she didn’t want to be responsible for others trying “Living on Light” without having their “belief systems lined up.” She says that would be like “giving a loaded shotgun to a baby.”

    Shine says she simply wanted to know if “breatharianism,” a New Age belief that sunshine can substitute for food, was possible. She posted about her experiment on Facebook, YouTube and her Living on Light website.

    “I didn’t prove it,” she admits. But, says Shine, it certainly got people talking.

    Those are four valid points, On that basis, good for her.

    • In reply to #18 by old-toy-boy:

      “Those are four valid points, On that basis, good for her.”

      No they are not, these are questions that only a deluded fool would ask we should pity her not praise. They make little sense even as sentences, it’s all just babble and a totally unbelievable stupid concept. This makes walking on water and turning water into wine seem sane!

      Comparing her self interested self publicized fairly tale stupidity to Gandhi’s politically hunger strike for the good of millions is beyond me…

    • In reply to #24 by A3Kr0n:

      What about all those children that die everyday “living on light”? Does she live in a box, or what?

      Exactly my thought. Because it is such an obvious question, there must be some wooish rationalization for this – does anyone know what it is?

        • In reply to #38 by bluebird:

          In reply to #28 by blitz442:

          wooish rationalization for this

          Living on Light

          “The body has to be aligned and ready for this: the mind has to have all its belief systems lined up to allow this possibility to enter the system; the emotional system has to have let go of its programmed fears and be able to step into the unknown without hesitation.”

          Got it – there it is. It would work if only I believed enough. I guess starving people in different parts of the world just need to let go of their programmed fears about nourishment and they’ll be fine.

          In other words, this woman’s belief is completely immune to contradictory evidence. Not one iota different from the type of rationalization that the religious use to justify evidence that does not comport with their beliefs.

  7. “Sh’s quitting on Wednesday in part because she’s run out of money”

    Before reading that bit,I was thinking she will save enough money for a great sendoff..I never thought not eating is more expensive than eating
    .

    .Not cleaver to expose your body to extreme conditions at the age of 65.

  8. (paraphrased) Had hoped to defray costs – maxed out credit cards – from buying eight security cameras to prove she wasn’t cheating, and the secluded trailer she rented for the experiment.

    Hence, asking for contributions, which were practically nil. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

  9. ‘The public reaction’, eh? What might that reaction be, I wonder? You’re a f’ing moron. Seriously, somebody should just hand her a loaded gun and say ‘have at it’. You should take a minute and show her which end to put in her mouth, and how to activate it. ‘Sunny days from now on’.

Leave a Reply