Talk:Rebirthing (breathwork)

The contents of the Rebirthing (breathwork) page were merged into Breathwork#Description and sub-types on 30 July 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative medicine This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Alternative Views This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles

The contents of the Leonard Orr page were Rebirthing (breathwork) on 24 August 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page .

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The artlcle states "Rebirthing-breathwork is one of the practices critiqued by anti-cult experts Margaret Singer and Janja Lalich in the book Crazy Therapies: What Are They? Do They Work?.[1] Singer and Lalich write that proponents of such "bizarre" practices are proud of their non-scientific approach, and that this finds favor with an irrational clientele."

This whole thing is rather incomprehensible to me. For example, what does "finds favor with an irrational clientele" mean? Is this paragraph acceptable for an encyclopedic article?

Unsigned, 5/31/15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.43.22 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebirthing article started as a discussion of only "Rebirthing-Breathwork" and omitted all the related theories which go by the name "rebirthing". Specifically, the early version omitted all mention of compression-theory and its dangers. There is good evidence that at least some of those more controversial theories were based on or drew philosophical support from Orr's theory.

The original article was extensively rewritten to cover the more general topic of "rebirthing". It lists Orr's theory in a History section but includes the other practices. Since then, several people have attempted to edit that article back to a more narrow focus on Orr's "rebirthing-breathwork" framework. I've now broken that off to this separate article. I'm not sure I got all the details right in the transfer. In particular, the first four bullets in the "Theories" should be validated as appropriate to "rebirthing-breathwork". Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the four points, they are accurately tied to Rebirthing Breathwork. Many practitioners including Leonard Orr also use the term Conscious Breathing, as there are many benefits beyond just clearing Birth Trauma or other suppressed emotional energies. I've made some minor notes in several places in the text to expand what is there. shinyblue 20 Apr 2005

article page "Criticisms" section

I removed the 1st point. I took out the line because there is now scientific evidence of cellular memory in transplant receipients. 86.132.228.51 11:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)chris[reply]

And I've put it back pending a

citation of your source. That is an extraordinary claim and deserves extraordinary confirmation. Rossami (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi all the subtypes are listed on Breathwork, but I agree these articles are sprawling/lots of them, I have merged a couple of duplicate one's now though.

Some of this article is in the form of lists of points. Stylistically, encyclopedia, and Wikip articles, usually are not. We should make these lists into proper paragraphs.Merkinsmum 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've just been watching too much Law and Order but I seriously Object. "due to ignorance and misunderstanding on the part a few medical professionals (and parents/family)" Seriously? That doesn't even belong in a personal memoir, much less an encyclopedic article. I don't know much about the subject so I can't really edit it myself but someone needs to clean this ridiculous drivel up because it sounds like an uneducated 5th grader wrote it. Sixthcrusifix (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes a subject from within a coherent and solely self-referential literature. It is "in universe" and not written as an encyclopaedia entry for the general community who do not share these beliefs or literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that is not an appropriate use of that particular tag. "In-universe" has to do solely with fiction. While I consider Orr's opinions and practices to be more than a little flaky, they are real-world beliefs, held by real humans, documented in real journals and occasionally resulting in real deaths. The "in-universe" tag does not apply.
Now, if you want to apply a {{

NPOV}} tag or to suggest specific rewrites here on Talk, I would not disagree with your assessment. This page has been hijacked at various times by devout advocates and/or apologists of these practices. It is a constant struggle to maintain balance. (And as you may guess from my tone here, I do not consider myself completely unbiased on the topic so I try to limit my edits.) Rossami (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sources 1 & 2 are singularly unimpressive as sources of facticity. The remaining four sources are criticism. It looks like fiction to me, if with an intense otaku cosplay scene. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone researching this:

The Hyperventilation technique of Rebirthing puts the body in Alkalosis

Personally, I have found this to open the barrier between the conscious and subconscious.

More detailed non personal point of view information: The Psychosis of Metabolic Alkalosis, James S. Howard

Researching Mr. Orr's personal experience and explanation is a scientific dead end.

If I get better infomation or sources I will post a proper article entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.22.99 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been 'rebirthing' people for many years now. The essential method is simple: a wave-like inhale from the belly to the chest and a total relaxation (neither controlled nor forced) on the exhale. The exhale and the inhale are connected (there is no pause between). Thus, the breathing is circular (not broken).

In my experience, memories of birth come up infrequently during rebirthing sessions. They do come up, however, and are often intensely felt by the client. Most rebirthing experiences do not relate directly to the birth process.

While rebirthing, clients frequently feel some strong sensations in various parts of their body followed by a release of feelings/emotions. Primarily, these take the form of anger and sadness. Often fear or guilt come up as well. The presence of the rebirther is very securing when these emotions are being processed. Frequently, the major issue(s) of the 'rebirthee' turns around one or two individuals (often a parent or both parents). By discreetly asking the right questions, the rebirthee will recollect or state what their issue is with that person. Usually, there is a release of held-in emotions and sometimes strong feelings of guilt that may or may not be valid.

After the session the rebirthee feels lighter, freer, happier -- as a rule. People who have been seriously traumatized (sexual abuse as children, for example) require a series of rebirths. The best rebirthers/breathworkers are also able to intuit which questions to ask the rebirthee during the process. The right questions (not 'leading' questions) support the rebirthee in letting go of what they have been suppressing. The questions should be few, brief and direct. The rebirther should be asked to respond in only a word or two. If the rebirthee begins talking, he/she will stop the rebirthing process, which will be counter-productive. Also, by asking the right questions, the rebirthee will reveal what his/her negative (perhaps largely unconscious) judgments are concerning others as well as him/herself. When the rebirther points out what these judgements are at the end of the session the rebirthee can begin to engage in a self-enquiry concerning his/her largely unexamined assumptions about others and about themselves. Simple writing and communication techniques can then be very useful in enabling the rebirthee to either let go of or modify those judgments which are harmful, counter-productive or delusional.

It has been my experience that rebirthing, when practiced properly with a rebirther who has a grasp of how the mind works, results in a great 'letting go' which in turn results in better physical health, mental health and social/financial health. Energy levels go up; reliance on pharmaceutical and other drugs (including cigarettes, alcohol, sugar, etc) goes down. Egocentricity diminishes; a heathy and positive sense of Self increases.

A competent rebirther combines empathy with objectivity, intuition with knowledge. He/she does not allow any sexual energy to pass between his/herself and the client. Confidentiality is established at the outset. An understanding of the location and nature of the body's major energy centers (chakras) is also extremely useful, even essential.

Duart Maclean beingandconsciousness.com rebirthing.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.174.69 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had mentioned 'chakras' at the beginning of your original research, it would save a great deal of time in determining the woo content of this post. If this is an accurate portrayal of rebirthing, then it most certainly does not belong in medicine, as there is a distinct lack of falsifiable, controlled evidence for any such therapy's benefit. In good faith, could you supply references outside of your own research? Specifically, a description of what is meant by 'energy center,' and what sort of 'energy' is being referred to, would be most helpful. Also, to note: 'intuition' and 'objectivity' are polar opposites; to speak of combining them is nonsensical, in the way that speaking of having a 'triangular square' is nonsensical.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoobMonkey (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should contain more information on what rebirthing (breathwork) is. Here a suggestion: "Rebirthing-breathwork is a type of breathwork invented by Leonard Orr.[1] Orr proposed that the correct breathing technique can cure disease and relieve pain.[1] He proposed the technique of connected breathing which means to make no pauses between inhalation and exhalation. By keeping the attention on the breathing for a longer time, suppressed memories can become conscious and can be released." References: Dowling, C. (2014), Rebirthing and Breathwork: A Powerful Technique for Personal Transformation. ISBN: 978-1495345760 Minett, G. (1994), Breath and Spirit: Rebirthing as a Healing Technique. ISBN: 978-1855383531

Plus: The reference <<Radford B (2000). "New Age 'Rebirthing' Treatment Kills Girl". Skeptical Inquirer 24 (5): 6.>> should be deleted as it belongs to another site (Rebirthing (attachment therapy)) (Wilfried-Ehrmann (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

This is a fringe topic so we need to avoid in-movement sources and use

talk) 20:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The Skeptical Inquirer reference points at another technique, a certain type of attachment therapy using a carpet to trigger birth memories. This has nothing in common with the rebirthing breathwork that was invented by Leonard Orr except the name. When there should by a "mainstream scholarly discourse" (WP:FRIND), this distinction is crucial, otherwise the page creates confusion (and blames a person - Orr - for inventing a technique which kills people, which is an unfair accusation insinuated in this article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfried-Ehrmann (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there came no answer to my argument above, I removed the Skeptical Inquirer reference, which is misleading and insinuating, but it came back soon after. So it seems that this page is sealed against any change, so someone wants it their way without communicating why and without arguments on common sense ground or scientific integrity. Sorry for the bias that contradicts wikipedias guidelines and violates the claims for objectivity and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfried-Ehrmann (talk • contribs) 09:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:204.13.204.194 please explain, based on the sourced content in the article, why this is not alt med. thx Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make the following suggestions for the Rebirthing (breathwork) article:

1. It may be true that "Orr proposed that correct breathing can cure disease and relieve pain" but it was wrong of Leonard Orr to say that. The goal of this modality is to heal suppressed feelings such as anger, fear, etc., as discussed in the book "Rebirthing: The Science of Enjoying All of Your Life" by Jim Leonard and Phil Laut. I have had many, many, rebirthing-breathwork sessions and not once has my rebirther asked me what diseases or physical pain I would like to work on. It simply is not the goal of this technique to heal disease, and this statement should be removed, in my opinion.

2. Regarding the sentences "Rebirthing-breathwork is one of the practices critiqued by anti-cult experts Margaret Singer and Janja Lalich in the book Crazy Therapies: What Are They? Do They Work?.[1] Singer and Lalich write that proponents of such "bizarre" practices are proud of their non-scientific approach, and that this finds favor with an irrational clientele":

a. First I would like to discuss the part about proponents being "proud of their non-scientific approach." I have read the section on rebirthing-breathwork in "Crazy Therapies" and what they seem to mean by "non-scientific" is that this technique hasn't been tested in an experimental way, say by having 100 subjects rebirthed and then seeing if most of them experienced benefits. Well, of course it hasn't, as rebirthers aren't clinicians. Also, the technique doesn't lend itself to this kind of verification as the results are feeling based. Should this be removed from the article?

b. The part about "finds favor with an irrational clientele" seems to not belong in Wikipedia as it is criticizing clients of this technique because they use something that hasn't been "scientifically" proven.

3. Regarding the sentence "In 2006, a panel that consisted of over one hundred experts participated in a survey of psychological treatments considered rebirthing therapy to be discredited." I examined the poll cited and, beyond rebirthing-breathwork, seems to also refer to (at least) the modality called rebirthing that some psychotherapists have practiced (which is not rebirthing-breathwork). Also, proponents of rebirthing-breathwork claim that this technique can heal suppressed emotions regardless of when they were suppressed, not just at birth. I would suggest that this be removed.

Also, I would like to add more information about rebirthing-breathwork but I'm concerned that someone who dislikes this modality would edit it out. For example, I once added to the article a statement that rebirthers often suggest affirmations (i.e., positive thoughts) to their clients. This innocuous statement was then removed!

I welcome any feedback. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.204.194 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as you note, there is a therapeutic goal here. we need sources per

WP:MEDRS to talk about things related to therapy. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

No, Jytgod, that's exactly my point, there is no medical goal in rebirthing (breathwork). It's simply a breathing technique akin to yoga, so your request for medical sources is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.204.194 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except "Orr proposed that correct breathing can cure disease and relieve pain".

talk) 17:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

He was wrong. Time marches on and progress is made. Would you take a quote from a scientist in 1800 that we now know to be wrong and insist that's the way scientists think now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.204.194 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to keep contributing here, indent your posts and sign them. This is basic courtesy here. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my initial response, when I wrote, "as you note, there is a therapeutic goal here" I was responding to your OP, where you wrote "... The goal of this modality is to heal..." (emphasis added). "Healing" is therapeutic. If you didn't believe it was effective at healing - in other words, actually therapeutic -- you would not be here. You seem to be trying to make a distinction that therapy is not about health; it is. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a proponent of this technique, and am aware it is controversial. But it would be helpful to know what it entails... there is very little description of the actual method. Keep the criticism by all means, but please explain what "rebirthing" involves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.53.202 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. In-world sources can be used to describe the method - provided we don't imply that it accomplishes unproven benefits. --Karinpower (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, Breathwork is more comprehensive and has room for some description of each method (including criticism). Since this page has so few sources, is it noteworthy enough to have its own page? Borderline. --Karinpower (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC) PS. Let's discuss this on the Talk page of Breathwork instead of here. This is my first merge proposal so I'm learning as I go. --Karinpower (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]