The Scientific Skeptic

The Scientific Skeptic: The Aura Photographer

This last weekend I attended a local show of artists specializing in, what I would call, the ‘dark arts’ – mysteries and conspiracies, crystals and magic, horror and the occult, and ‘goth’ art. Among the illustrators, mixed media artists, authors, and psychic readers, there was a young man offering his services as an aura photographer. For $25, I could be photographed with his special camera against a neutral background, and receive not only the photo showing my aura, but a multi-page report about my personality and future.

Reading the energy auras of others (usually by someone claiming an ability to ‘see’) and photographing auras are part of what is considered parapsychology - the study of paranormal or psychic phenomenon – which falls outside the accepted scientific field of psychology. And, because it cannot be scientifically (empirically or definitively) tested, it is considered pseudoscience. Therefore, I doubt the claim that personality type or traits, let alone my future, can be determined by ‘seeing’ or photographing energy auras of individuals.

A research question to challenge this claim might be: How does the energy emitted from an individual indicate personality type and could the ‘reading’ change due to emotional/mood fluctuations? My reasoning is that there would likely be more energy emanating from an individual when they were angry or agitated than when they were calm or still, thus producing a different colored aura that would indicate a different personality type. To apply the scientific method to this research question with the aim of finding empirical evidence to refute the claim, I would develop a hypothesis such as: If an individual was emotionally agitated when their aura was read (or photographed), then their personality type could be misidentified.

To test my hypothesis, an individual could be photographed, using the specialty camera, several times during different moods or emotions. I would predict that those photographs would show different colors during different types of emotions, especially agitation, frustration, or during relaxation or meditative states. To collect data, I could enlist participants that could either self-identify their personality type or take an existing personality test to identify their personality type. They would then be photographed multiple times in one day (morning, afternoon, evening), and recording their emotional states at each time. This could be repeated a couple of weeks later for more data; the same individuals could be used, or it could be new participants.

The collected data - photographs and the known personality type for each participant – could then be analyzed for correct or incorrect identification. Conclusions could be derived from the findings; if a large percentage of error was revealed between the aura readings and the reported personality types of the participants, then it could be suggested that participants’ emotional states could have caused the differences. If there were no differences, and the readings were consistent despite emotion/mood changes, it could be suggested that emotional agitation did not affect the energy emitted from an individual, and the personality type interpreted would be constant. Another factor to be considered would be whether the interpreted personality type from the aura reading and reported personality type (from the individual or a test) were alike. However, the major limitation in this study design is using personality types as a measure, since they, too, are often considered pseudoscience. Using a control of known personality types would deem this study invalid, unreliable, and certainly not credible.

Invalidity and unreliability are hallmarks of pseudoscience; concepts and theories understood to be pseudoscience are not testable, or falsifiable, with the scientific method (Shermer, 2011). That leaves the pseudoscience of aura readings and photography in the realm of alternative methods of explanation or justification of belief (“fixation of belief,” are ways in which individuals accept and believe ideas; Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2013, p. 3). There are three alternative ways of explanation other than the empirical scientific method: the method of tenacity, the method of authority, and the a priori method (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2013). I think an individual might believe the conclusions of an aura reading for any of these reasons, so I will explore each one.

The method of tenacity relies heavily on the way things have always been done, with inflexibility to change (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2013). Aura readings and photography have been around since the 1970s, at the start of the New Age movement, and is an accepted part of the paranormal ‘community’ (Wikipedia, n.d.). Some may believe aura readings are valid simply because of the length of time the technique has been around, or because they are part of a group of people who consider it legitimate. This method of tenacity is different from the scientific method because it is not open to change, new approaches, or challenging research findings.

The second alternative method of explanation is also not like the scientific method. The method of authority is believing an idea or concept because someone in authority believes it or says others should believe it (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2013). Those considered influential or authority figures (spiritual leaders or celebrities) can give aura readings validity with their approval or participation. However, this is different from the scientific method that does not rely on any individual’s opinion but is built on the repeated testing of variables. The scientific method relies on results and research findings for conclusions, not someone’s opinion, even if they are in a position of authority.

Finally, and probably the most prevalent alternative method of explanation, is the a priori method. This method depends on one’s own opinion, reasoning, and logic to determine whether an idea or concept is acceptable (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2013). I think those who trust their own instincts, reasoning, or logic may accept aura readings are valid if it says what they want to hear or if it agrees with what they already want to believe about themselves or the nature of their energy. This subjective method – I consider it the ‘subject set of one,’ – is different from the structured scientific method of repetitive testing (with acceptable sample sizes that that can be generalized to a population of interest) that is as objective and unbiased as possible. While the a priori method utilizes more reasoning and logic, it is biased and unreliable.

Back at the ‘dark arts’ artist show, I tried to be as objective and unbiased as possible while I was chatting with the young man selling aura photographs. I was hoping my face did not give away my skepticism – he was a very nice man and I didn’t want to offend him. As I leafed through his example photos, I tried to discern whether the aura colors matched the faces staring back at me. I asked him if he had any customers that day, and he said no. That was too bad. I would have liked to observe the procedure and a customer response. I am not sure it would have changed my skepticism, however.

 

credit: Howard Minton

References

Aura (paranormal). (n.d.). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)

Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2013). Beginning behavioral research: A conceptual primer (7th ed.). Pearson.

Shermer, M. (2011). What is pseudoscience? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/

 

January 2020