|
As far as herbs are concerned, their use is provable, at least when used therapeutically. This is because it is a chemical action of compounds within the plant. For example; black willow bark has acetacylic acid and so can be used for treatment of the same kinds of things aspirin is used for. ... Because it basically *is* aspirin.
The scents of certain flowers also have measurable effects on people, because scent is very closely linked to both memory and emotion. So certain scents like lavender or vanilla, or other sweet smells can be calming. While sharper, citrus or bitter smells like lemon or coffee can be invigorating or inspire alertness.
Basically, they have aspects that can be verified through physical means and measurements. Meanwhile magic, energy working, and other spiritual concepts are by nature and focus separated from the physical. This makes them very difficult to test well.
But. Some interesting attempts have been made;
Power of human observation- In laboratory tests it has been found that light changes its behavior and likely nature simply by being observed. When tested without observation it behaves like a wave/energy (a non-physical thing). But while observed directly it behaves as a particle (a physical thing). It has opened all kinds of thoughts regarding if humans are changing or even harming the universe around us simply by trying to observe it.
Power of sound and music- there have been experiments performed with plants grown from seed, where each plant was exposed to a different genre of music 24 hours a day. Each plant appeared to be affected in its health and growth speed, including some outright dying even if exposed shortly after sprouting (to rule out bad seeds).
Power of energy/intent- There have been experiments performed with people actively projecting both good, ill, and neutral intent into test tubes of bacterial cultures for a period of time each day over several days and observing the population/culture growth. Ill intentions and negative thoughts correlated with stunted growth while positive increased it.
Humans as producers of light- it has been established that humans (and many other things) produce light. Though it is in such small volumes as to be nearly individual photons and therefore unable to be seen. However they can be measured/counted in lab settings, and a brief experiment was done to see if mental state, meditation, and/or spiritual practice could affect the output. If memory serves, intense emotion, meditation, and people who were generally more spiritually focused in life produced more light.
Quirky trivia side note; The pineal gland has photoreceptor cells. So yes, we have a literal third eye in our brains. Though it is in no way connected to visual processing. It will never 'see'. It is more likely linked to circadian rhythms and associated behaviors.
*back on topic* This isn't even including experiments done with use of 'emf', ultraviolet, and 'flir' recording equipment to attempt to capture or visualize the heat, electro-magnetic, and other fields a body produces.
One source that is highly un-scientific, but has been known to capture intriguing moments, is on ghost hunting shows. You need mountainous heaps of skepticism-salt, but things do happen. A personal favorite is when Zak from ghost hunters is talking with a psychic while the crew was messing with infra-red, and it captures a wave spreading from Zak towards the man. The psychic, during the conversation, sweeps a hand downwards and Zak's field drops down with it as if pushed to the floor. Proof? ... No. But pretty neat.
The real trouble with all of these experiments is they are frequently performed by students. Or on machinery that is new technology, customised, or re-purposed from a different intended use. Like using an Xbox motion capture device to have figures register on walls where a ghost might be. Or, the tests are not repeatable (which is one of the critical scientific requirements) or partially (but not totally) debunked, or have had process and control issues that could be argued to cause a loss of accuracy in results because they might be influenced by un-controlled or un-considered factors.
So a body of experiments does exist, but the flaws in them mean they are open to debate until repetition and refinement can bring about repeatable, predictable, controlled results. It is just too early in this kind of field of study. Too few experiments spread over too great a period of time (and resulting jumps in technology) with no peer testing/repetitions to give a sense of veracity.
| 
