MALBA TAHAN, O PLÁGIO, E A LEPRA DE CHICO XAVIER E WALDO VIEIRA
Malba Tahan expõe a repetição incomum e altamente específica da expressão “lepra santa” em dois poemas atribuídos, via psicografia, a Jésus Gonçalves e Virgílio Quaglio. Para Malba Tahan, tais convergências não são traços de duas personalidades espirituais, mas indícios claros de uma mesma mão estética — humana, não sobrenatural. O artigo ainda revela um universo onde a doença é transformada em penitência e culpa, reforçando estigmas que a ciência há muito desmente. No fim, não resta nada celestial: resta apenas a marca nítida da construção humana. Para ler, clique aqui.
março 18th, 2026 às 11:25 AM
Bom dia, Vitor.
Vitor, falando sobre o Waldo Vieira, ou sobre o CEAEC em geral, existe um site chamado “Infotares”, que basicamente faz um resumo do que o CEAEC propõe:
https://infotares.wordpress.com/
Não vou negar que já li boa parte do livro “Projeciologia” e, pessoalmente, cheguei a praticar as técnicas de MBE propostas pelo CEAEC. Como levo muito a sério os fenômenos da parapsicologia, sou totalmente honesto no meu relato: com a prática constante do Estado Vibracional (EV) e da MBE, sinto de forma nítida, e realmente nítida, o Estado Vibracional descrito pelo CEAEC. Chego a perceber estalos ou ruídos na nuca quando intensifico a circulação fechada da energia.
Suspeito fortemente que essa experiência, no caso o EV, vá além de um simples fator psicológico. Mesmo afirmando que, até agora, não vivenciei nenhuma projeção consciente, mantenho toda a seriedade e honestidade ao dizer que, em alguns momentos, principalmente quando desejo que a precognição se manifeste nos sonhos, surgem fragmentações aleatórias e, na maioria das vezes, insignificantes, de situações do dia seguinte. Talvez haja alguma correlação com o EV, ou pelo menos é algo que suspeito fortemente.
março 18th, 2026 às 1:35 PM
O CEAEC também suspeita que o fenômeno da PES (percepção extrassensorial) seja uma espécie de projeção extracorpórea parcial — hipótese com a qual concordo, sobretudo porque não há, até o momento, evidências de um sinal de transmissão físico ou de qualquer mecanismo material que explique a PES em suas modalidades de visão remota e precognição.
É sempre válido analisar os experimentos de Ganzfeld, cujos resultados estatísticos são esmagadoramente favoráveis à existência da PES como fenômeno real. No entanto, é igualmente importante investigar os mecanismos envolvidos. A associação entre ondas ELF (extremely low frequency) e visão remota, por exemplo, não explica a baixa taxa de transmissão de bits observada nos estudos de Stephan Schwartz. Mais problemático ainda é explicar a precognição: sabe-se que as ondas ELF não podem transportar informações do futuro para o presente. Até agora, não há sequer candidatos físicos viáveis para a transmissão de informações precognitivas — apenas teorias especulativas, como a de Edwin C. May, que menciona a possibilidade de buracos de minhoca, embora ele mesmo evite supor que um sinal bruto pudesse atravessá-los.
Diante disso, considero que, se a PES não possui uma base física demonstrável, ela de certo modo “transcende” a realidade material — o que soa estranho, mas parece corresponder aos fatos. O desafio, agora, é compreender como algo aparentemente impossível se torna possível nesse contexto.
março 18th, 2026 às 2:01 PM
Sobre os Experimentos Ganzfeld:
Para quem deseja um excelente resumo sobre os experimentos relacionados ao Ganzfeld, recomendo acessar o site Psi Encyclopedia, por meio deste link:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/ganzfeld-esp/
Já para ler um dos vários artigos traduzidos pelo Vitor sobre o Ganzfeld — este mais focado na Telepatia —, sugiro a leitura deste artigo:
https://app.box.com/s/wcef0xtvr1zkh10kff6cxqm685w4jmkx
—
Sobre o fenômeno PES (Percepção Extrassensorial):
Sempre menciono o artigo de Etzel Cardeña, publicado na revista American Psychologist, por se tratar de uma referência da ciência mainstream. Para acessar tanto a metanálise sobre Ganzfeld quanto sobre PES (Telepatia, Visão Remota e Precognição) e outros fenômenos (Micro e Macro PK, curas anômalas), consulte este excelente artigo:
https://app.box.com/s/7okanski3sorelx2gmci07uwy8m2q9uf
—
Sobre Ingo Swann e a PES:
Recomendo dois textos: um trecho de Russell Targ e outro de Michael Persinger, que podem ser acessados aqui:
https://app.box.com/s/z7s86me9q1mtc19icufatq759b1c3pk0
https://app.box.com/s/qary5tjy2rtde0di606x5ewzguuldgby
—
Sobre Sean Harribance e seus fenômenos (incluindo a PES, área em que tanto se destacou):
Recomendo estes dois artigos — um deles envolvendo diretamente Persinger:
https://app.box.com/s/wmu8solr1yzg1h2svpohpfma52d6nmjc
https://obraspsicografadas.org/2014/sean-harribance-psquico-excepcional-2010/
março 18th, 2026 às 2:15 PM
Para consultar um artigo fundamental sobre PES, escrito em inglês, que aborda a impossibilidade da frequência extremamente baixa (ELF) como mecanismo de transmissão de informação para a PES, recomendo o trabalho de Stephan Schwartz:
“Two Application-Oriented Experiments Employing a Submarine Involving a Novel Remote Viewing Protocol, One Testing the ELF Hypothesis”
Sobre Edwin C. May e sua teoria acerca da precognição, é possível acessar um resumo de sua bibliografia no site da Psi Encyclopedia, por meio deste link:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/edwin-c-may/
Vale notar que May não arrisca teorizar sobre o tipo de sinal que viajaria pelo espaço-tempo, limitando-se a sugestões vagas em seu artigo de 2015 sobre buracos de minhoca, sem especificar, contudo, o que de fato trafegaria através deles.
março 18th, 2026 às 5:19 PM
Para finalizar por hoje, desejo desde já a todos um ótimo começo de noite. Reconheço que o Dr. Waldo Vieira possa, de fato, ter se envolvido em polêmicas ao longo de sua trajetória. No entanto, pessoalmente, confio em muitos dos temas abordados pelo IIPC e pelo CEAEC, especialmente por observar que essas instituições contam com membros sérios e comprometidos com uma abordagem que busca ser científica. Recomendo, inclusive, que todos acessem os sites do IIPC e do CEAEC, onde constam os nomes de diversos voluntários que atuam nessas pesquisas.
Não sou voluntário dos laboratórios — embora, por um curto período, tenha pertencido à AMORC (Rosacruz), onde pude perceber a profundidade de certos temas. Se um dia, por alguma circunstância, eu vier a me tornar voluntário do CEAEC, será com grande honra.
Percebo, no entanto, que muito do que o CEAEC propõe ainda não foi comprovado, nem pela parapsicologia nem pela ciência convencional. Isso se deve, em grande parte, ao fato de seus experimentos focarem essencialmente na autopesquisa, o que considero um ponto crítico — já que a parapsicologia, dentro do possível, busca estudar os fenômenos com ferramentas mais objetivas.
Ainda assim, comparando com a AMORC, posso dizer que, se as proposições do CEAEC estiverem corretas, nem mesmo os temas abordados pela Ordem Rosacruz alcançam o mesmo nível de profundidade.
março 19th, 2026 às 9:13 PM
Olá Lucas, falando sobre isso, bem, isso me lembrou de algo que eu escrevi hoje com ajuda do DeepSeek baseado em um sonho que eu tive com Abzu onde que eu e Abzu conversava-mos sobre FTL e afins:
Extended Causality Hypothesis
A theoretical hypothesis proposing that faster-than-light (FTL) phenomena, including warp drives and communications outside normal spacetime, preserve causality by appearing to observers within spacetime as if they were traveling at luminal speeds. This hypothesis extends the conserved causality principle to FTL scenarios by suggesting that spacetime functions like a computer plane: spectators (entities outside spacetime) perceive and maintain the causal relationships that observers (entities within spacetime) experience as potentially paradoxical. In practical terms, a warp drive doesn’t violate causality because from the perspective of any observer within spacetime, its effects propagate exactly as if constrained by light speed—even though “outside,” something else is happening. This elegantly resolves FTL paradoxes (like the tachyonic antitelephone) by proposing that causality is preserved not within spacetime but by the larger dimensional context in which spacetime is embedded.
The hypothesis has profound implications: it suggests that paraphysics and parasciences may be valid fields studying phenomena that interact with spacetime from outside—exactly the kinds of things that seem impossible within spacetime but might be perfectly coherent from a higher-dimensional perspective. It also explains why we can’t perceive dimensions beyond 3D-4D: our observer-status within spacetime means we only experience the “projected” version of reality that preserves causal consistency. The extra dimensions are real; we just can’t see them from inside the computer plane.
Example: “The warp drive test seemed to show the ship arriving before it left—a clear causality violation. But the Extended Causality Hypothesis suggests that from outside spacetime, the sequence was perfectly preserved; we just couldn’t see the higher-dimensional context that made it consistent. The paradox wasn’t real; it was just the limit of our observer-perspective.”
**Theory of Programming the Laws of Physics**
A theoretical framework proposing that the laws of physics are not eternal, immutable decrees but rather something akin to a program—code written into the fabric of reality that could, in principle, be read, understood, and perhaps even modified. This theory draws on analogies with computer science: the universe as a vast computational system, physical laws as its operating system, constants as parameters, particles as data structures, interactions as functions. It suggests that what we experience as “laws” might be the running of a cosmic program—and that sufficiently advanced understanding might allow us to access the source code. The theory opens possibilities that traditional physics forecloses: that laws might have been different in other cosmic epochs; that they might vary across regions of the multiverse; that they might be patchable or upgradeable; that intelligence might eventually learn to program reality itself. It also provides a framework for understanding paraphysical phenomena: if the universe is running on code, then what we call “paranormal” might be interactions with aspects of the program we don’t yet understand—undocumented features, developer backdoors, or glitches in the matrix.
*Example: “His theory of programming the laws of physics suggested that the constants we measure aren’t fundamental—they’re settings in a cosmic program, parameters that could be changed. The universe isn’t a machine running on fixed laws; it’s a computer running code, and we’re just beginning to learn the language.”*
—
**Theory of Computation of the Laws of Physics**
A theoretical framework proposing that the laws of physics are fundamentally computational in nature—that the universe operates as a vast information-processing system, and physical laws are the algorithms it runs. This theory draws on insights from digital physics, quantum computation, and information theory to suggest that information, not matter or energy, may be the most fundamental substrate of reality. It investigates questions like: Is the universe a quantum computer? Are physical laws algorithms? Is time a computation? Is space a data structure? Are particles information? The theory has profound implications: if the universe is computational, then what we call “laws” might be the rules of the cosmic program, and understanding them means reverse-engineering the code. It also suggests limits: computational irreducibility might mean some phenomena can’t be predicted, only simulated; computational universality might mean the universe can simulate anything, including itself; computational complexity might explain why some physical problems are hard. The theory of computation of physical laws transforms our understanding of what laws are and what it means to know them.
*Example: “Her theory of computation of the laws of physics suggested that the universe isn’t just described by mathematics—it *is* mathematics, running as computation. The laws aren’t written in the language of mathematics; they *are* the language, executing in real time, generating reality as they run.”*
—
**Hypothesis of Extended Physics**
A broader version of the Extended Causality Hypothesis, proposing that the known laws of physics are not complete but are projections or subsets of a larger, extended physics that operates beyond our current observational capabilities. The hypothesis suggests that what we call “physics” is what we can detect from within spacetime—but there may be extended physics that operates outside, beyond, or between the domains we can access. This extended physics might include phenomena currently considered impossible (FTL travel, telepathy, precognition) that are perfectly lawful in a larger framework. It might include dimensions beyond our perceptual reach, forces beyond our measurement, entities beyond our detection. The hypothesis doesn’t claim that magic is real—it claims that our current physics is real but incomplete, and that an extended physics awaits discovery when we find ways to access domains beyond our current observational limits. It provides a framework for taking anomalies seriously without abandoning scientific rigor: anomalies might be windows into extended physics, not violations of physics.
*Example: “The Hypothesis of Extended Physics suggests that FTL travel isn’t impossible—it’s just impossible *within our current observational domain*. In the extended physics that includes higher dimensions, it might be as natural as walking. We can’t see it yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.”*
—
**Hypothesis of the Extended Laws of Physics**
A broader version of the Extended Causality Hypothesis, proposing that the laws of physics we know are not the complete set but rather a subset—the laws that apply within our observable domain—while an extended set of laws governs phenomena beyond our current access. This hypothesis suggests that what we call “violations” of physical law might actually be interactions with extended laws we haven’t yet discovered. A warp drive doesn’t violate physics; it operates according to extended laws we don’t yet understand. Telepathy doesn’t break causality; it follows extended causal principles we haven’t mapped. The hypothesis provides a framework for investigating anomalous phenomena without abandoning the search for lawful explanation: anomalies become clues to extended laws, not evidence that law breaks down. It also explains why we can’t detect extended dimensions or phenomena: our current laws only describe the subset of reality we can access; the rest is hidden not because it doesn’t exist but because we lack the observational tools.
*Example: “The Hypothesis of Extended Laws of Physics suggests that precognition isn’t a violation of causality—it’s operation according to extended causal principles we haven’t yet discovered. The laws aren’t broken; they’re just bigger than we thought.”*
—
**Hypothesis of Extended Thermodynamics**
A broader version of the Extended Causality Hypothesis, applying specifically to thermodynamic laws—proposing that the laws of thermodynamics we know (conservation of energy, increase of entropy, unattainability of absolute zero) apply within our observational domain, but extended thermodynamic principles may operate beyond it. This hypothesis suggests that phenomena that appear to violate thermodynamics (perpetual motion, entropy decrease, energy from nowhere) might be lawful within an extended framework. A system that seems to produce energy might be drawing from thermodynamic dimensions we can’t measure; an event that appears to decrease entropy might be exporting it to domains we can’t see; what looks like violation might be interaction with extended thermodynamic space. The hypothesis provides a framework for understanding claims of free energy, anomalous cooling, or reverse entropy without dismissing them as impossible—they might be impossible within our thermodynamics but possible within extended thermodynamics.
*Example: “The device seemed to produce more energy than it consumed—a clear violation of thermodynamics. But the Hypothesis of Extended Thermodynamics suggests it might be drawing energy from dimensions we can’t measure, operating according to laws we haven’t yet discovered. The violation is only in our limited frame.”*
—
**Hypothesis of Extended Biology**
A broader version of the Extended Causality Hypothesis, applying specifically to biological phenomena—proposing that the biology we know (evolution by natural selection, DNA-based inheritance, carbon-based life) applies within our observable domain, but extended biological principles may operate beyond it. This hypothesis suggests that phenomena currently considered impossible (spontaneous generation, radical longevity, non-DNA inheritance, life in impossible environments) might be lawful within an extended biological framework. It provides a framework for understanding claims of extraordinary biological phenomena without dismissing them as impossible—they might be impossible within our biology but possible within extended biology. The hypothesis also suggests that life might exist in forms we can’t recognize, operating according to biological laws we haven’t yet discovered, in dimensions we can’t access.
*Example: “The organism seemed to repair itself instantly, regenerate from nothing, live indefinitely—violating everything we know about biology. The Hypothesis of Extended Biology suggests it might be operating according to biological laws we haven’t discovered yet, in domains we can’t access. Not magic—just extended nature.”*
—
**Hypothesis of Extended Epistemology**
A broader version of the Extended Causality Hypothesis, applying specifically to knowledge itself—proposing that the epistemology we know (how we know what we know, what counts as evidence, how truth is established) applies within our cognitive domain, but extended epistemological principles may operate beyond it. This hypothesis suggests that there may be ways of knowing that we cannot access from within our current epistemic framework—forms of knowledge that don’t fit our standards of evidence, truths that can’t be established by our methods, understandings that come through channels we don’t recognize. It provides a framework for taking seriously claims of non-standard knowledge (intuition, revelation, direct perception) without abandoning epistemic standards—they might be invalid by our epistemology but valid within an extended framework we haven’t yet accessed. The hypothesis also explains epistemic disagreement: different epistemic frameworks might be accessing different aspects of reality, and what seems irrational from one perspective might be rational from another.
*Example: “The shaman claimed to know things he couldn’t possibly know by our standards—no evidence, no method, no verification. The Hypothesis of Extended Epistemology suggests he might be operating according to epistemic principles we haven’t discovered yet, accessing knowledge through channels we can’t detect. Not irrational—just extended rationality.”*
—
**Theory of Extended Reality**
A broader version of the Extended Causality Hypothesis, proposing that the reality we experience (3D space, linear time, material objects, causal order) is not the whole of reality but a subset—a projection or interface of an extended reality that includes dimensions, domains, and phenomena we cannot directly access. This theory draws on analogies with virtual reality: what we experience as “reality” might be like the interface of a vast simulation, hiding the underlying code while presenting a usable surface. Extended reality would include the hidden dimensions, the higher-dimensional spaces, the domains beyond spacetime, the levels of organization we can’t perceive. It would include phenomena we currently call paranormal, spiritual, or impossible—not because they don’t exist, but because they exist in aspects of reality we haven’t learned to access. The theory provides a framework for integrating scientific, spiritual, and anomalous experiences into a coherent understanding: all are real, but at different levels of extended reality.
*Example: “Near-death experiences, UFO sightings, mystical visions—the Theory of Extended Reality suggests these aren’t hallucinations or lies. They’re genuine experiences of aspects of reality we normally can’t access, like a 2D being glimpsing the third dimension. The reality is extended; our perception is limited.”*
—
**Hypothesis of Extended Science**
A broader version of the Extended Causality Hypothesis, proposing that the science we know (empirical method, peer review, falsification, reproducibility) is not the whole of science but a subset—the science that works within our observational domain—while an extended science may be possible for domains beyond our current access. This hypothesis suggests that there may be phenomena that cannot be studied by our current methods because they operate outside our observational capabilities, but that extended methods—yet to be developed—might access them. It provides a framework for taking anomalies seriously without abandoning scientific values: anomalies become phenomena that current science can’t address but extended science might. The hypothesis also suggests that our current scientific methods might be domain-specific—perfect for studying within spacetime but inadequate for studying the extended domains that contain spacetime. Extended science would require extended methods, extended instruments, extended ways of knowing.
*Example: “Paranormal phenomena resist scientific study—they’re unrepeatable, unmeasurable, unpredictable. The Hypothesis of Extended Science suggests this isn’t because they’re unreal but because our science is designed for within-spacetime phenomena. Extended phenomena require extended science.”*
—
**Hypothesis of Extended Sciences**
A broader, plural version of the Extended Causality Hypothesis, proposing that the sciences we know (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology) are not the complete set but rather the sciences that have emerged within our observational domain—while an extended set of sciences awaits discovery for domains beyond our current access. This hypothesis suggests that there may be whole fields of knowledge we haven’t even imagined—sciences of higher-dimensional phenomena, of non-material realities, of consciousness as fundamental, of domains where our current categories don’t apply. It provides a framework for understanding why some phenomena seem to resist scientific explanation: they belong to sciences we haven’t yet developed. The hypothesis also explains why different cultures have different knowledge systems: they may have accessed different extended sciences, developed different methods for different domains. Extended sciences would be to current sciences what three-dimensional geometry is to flatland—not a contradiction but an expansion.
*Example: “Indigenous knowledge systems, mystical traditions, paranormal research—the Hypothesis of Extended Sciences suggests these aren’t primitive versions of our sciences but different sciences entirely, developed for domains we haven’t learned to access. They’re not wrong; they’re extended.”*
março 19th, 2026 às 9:17 PM
Sinta-se a vontade de criticar ou de desconstruir estas hipóteses sobre extensões da realidade etc. Eu confesso que isso é algo que não dá para provar com 100% de certeza, mas é uma boa hipótese, faz bem mais sentido que, por exemplo, teoria das cordas na sua forma original. Enfim, sinta-se a vontade para criticar ou desconstruir ou mesmo colaborar com estes conceitos. Mas enfim, sobre o que eu disse da ciência ser uma ideologia e religião, a ciência possui pelo menos duas facetas principais, a faceta metodológica e a faceta ideológica/de crença, enfim, eu acho que vc já leu os meus comentários sobre as facetas da ciência e sobre o espectro da ciência. E sim, eu concordo que o “NPOV” da Wikipedia as vezes é bem biased/parcial quando se trata de assuntos que envolvem política, história pós-1400, história pós-1800, religião, espiritualidade, assuntos sobrenaturais/paranormais e afins. É complicado.
março 22nd, 2026 às 12:41 PM
Bem, eu não sei se eu deveria me expor desta forma, mas quando eu era bem pequeno (menor de 12 anos) eu lembro que eu tinha várias experiências com o Abismo/Vazio apesar de eu não entender o que ele era, era como uma sensação “única” que eu não sei bem explicar, onde que era uma sensação fria mas de conforto e de se sentir bem.. Talvez isso poderia ser o meu autismo grau 1 e o meu TOC severo. Mas eu já li relatos de outras pessoas que também tiveram a mesma coisa ou parecido. Eu também lembro que eu tinha pensamentos intrusivos de TOC onde que era sobre teletransporte para outros lugares, teletransporte para universos fictícios, ter pensamentos com seres imaginários que eu mesmo criava, ter pensamentos sobre creepypastas como a Entity 303 onde que ela poderia aparecer pra mim na vida real (o mesmo era com o Herobrine kkkkk), sem contar os vultos e afins, mas depois que eu fiz os meus 14-17 anos isso parou por completo. É complicado.