RTFA: http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20…

On 3 March 2008, in a popular TV show, Sanal Edamaruku, the president of Rationalist International, challenged India’s most “powerful” tantrik (black magician) to demonstrate his powers on him. That was the beginning of an unprecedented experiment. After all his chanting of mantra (magic words) and ceremonies of tantra failed, the tantrik decided to kill Sanal Edamaruku with the “ultimate destruction ceremony” on live TV. Sanal Edamaruku agreed and sat in the altar of the black magic ritual. India TV observed skyrocketing viewership rates.

I haven’t heard of the Tantrik video before, but it sounds great. The thing I want to know is how many practitioners of these things actually believe in what they’re doing. I think there are two classes of these spiritual-magicians:

1. the ones who know they’re robbing their audience and taking advantage of their spiritual beliefs,
2. those magicians who, for some reason, never figured out how they do the tricks they do

…and I guess I imagine that 99% are type 1. I think the people on that show were probably type 1. So, it’s kindof twisted for type 1 people to put on a show like that, knowing that they are lying, and fully expecting the audience to trust and believe them. I imagine that, in almost every moment, the type 1 person is thinking to themselves, “suckers!”

I’ve heard that this sort of hoax is rampant in India and Africa, and that tons of people get robbed this way each year. The exact same thing can be said of faith healers/televangelists and other US forms of spiritual magic.

It bothers me that someone - who is knowingly treating their audience like suckers - would take money from people who probably should spend it on medical care or food. Specifically, it bothers me that someone can hold two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time:

1. knowing that their “magic” is just a hoax, and that it can’t really help anyone
2. knowing that members in the audience might be in real need of help

It’s the thought-process that reconciles point #1 with point #2 that I dislike… #1 is hurting people, #2 is failing to help. The only way these points can be reconciled is that they are both damaging to people in the audience.

So, when we get down to it, it bothers me that these performers are fundamentally mean people, sewing distrust and injury throughout the world.