Talk:Bilocation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bilocation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 years

Paranormal Low‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).

Parapsychology (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology articles

Philosophy: Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Question

I understand the concept of bilocation and multi-location, but are there proper terms for "tri-"location; "quad"-location "sept"-location etc.? And I could be wrong, but I thought that "bi-"location refers only to being in (2) "two" places at the same time, and that "multi-"location was more than (1) "one" at the same time. "bi-" location refers to a limitation of "two" existences; and "multi-location" can be two, three, four etc; even up to infinitismal, because "multi-" means "many" is not limited to "two" as "bi" is so limited. If I am correct about this, the beginning sentence is misleading. I didn't think that in correct usage multi-location was interchangeable with "bi-"location.

You are right that bilocation cannot be interchange with multilocation. But bilocation is a subset of multilocation(every bilocation is multilocation but every multilocation is not bilocation). so bilocation is a type of multilocation. not same as multilocation. Holyvincent (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

robert grave and bilocation??

robert grave is novelist and a poet and refers to bilocation in his fictional works. thus his mentions of the case are purely fictional and not factual.

if anyone has information about his factual work then please bring it.......

Moreover robert grave was the one who helped to publish many works of idries shah and probably his claims were the same claims of idries shah( who was expert in sufism and considered sufism to predate islam.^[1] Holyvincent (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ wikipedia biography of idries shah

BILOCATION IN OTHER FAITHS AND SPIRITUAL TRADITIONS

Anecdotal reports of bilocation are not confined to Catholic Christianity. The phenomena has been reported in the lives of numerous Indian Saints as well. Among modern spiritual adepts who allegedly have exhibited this phenomena are Ananda Moyi Ma, Ammachi, Lahiri Mahasaya and Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri.

In the Hindu tradition, bilocation is considered an outward proof that the consciousness of the adept has expanded beyond the physical body. The appearance of an identical physical form is said to be evidence that the person has attained a higher state of consciousness.

Max Muller and other western scholars who have studied the Indian tradition question whether or not such phenomena are real, and suggest that bilocation and other extraordinary demonstrations may be due to "the dialogic process" or, the irrepressible miraculizing tendencies of devoted disciples.

As with Catholic Saints, the number of witnesses is substantial, and in some cases includes sceptics and multiple witnesses.

<AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI - Paramahansa Yogananda> < RAMAKRISHNA AND HIS DISCIPLES - Christopher Isherwood>Aspendougy (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of St. Alphonse and caption

Regarding the ^{[citation needed]} tag, the article on him in the Catholic Encyclopedia and the bio in WP do not mention this alleged event. Unless a cite is provided soon, the picture and caption should be deleted. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bilocation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203170134/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/228/blood_brother_padre_pio.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/228/blood_brother_padre_pio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism section...

Hello,

I am fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia, but one of the newer additions to this section of the article seems really out of place. It is important to approach an issue from multiple angles and to present all significant sides; in fact, this is one of Wikipedia's main tenets. However, it seems this section is seeking to completely discredit the section above it rather than simply propose a contrasting perspective. In addition, it is doing so while violating the tenet of verifiability. Whereas the first section references one source and attributes the claims to that source, the paragraphs afterward take up a personal and conversational tone of an author writing a think-piece. It references multiple subjects including oceanography, lucid dreaming, and relativity, all without actually providing any sources for its claims, including one that suggests that the people who hold the opposite position are responsible for the deaths of "untold numbers of sailors"!

If the author of this section wants to give his own opinions and commentary on anything in the article, I believe they are completely free to do so in the Talk section. I neither agree nor disagree with either of the positions. However, until further response or information comes to light, I will be removing the two latter paragraphs in their entirety for the sake of a neutral point of view and scholarly rigor.

Jbcarter2442 (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section currently has even worse issues. Cf:

...However [Skeptical investigator Joe] Nickel has been criticized to proceed unscientifically making statements that are mainly hypothetical or simply dismissing proven facts witnessed by hundreds and documented over centuries. Nickels has been suspected to be a member of several secret societies and an active Satanist...

I mean, this is outright defamation! There is no RS, which is not surprising. I will be deleting this immediately. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] wikipedia biography of idries shah

[1]