About: Scientific Background - Laser Energetic Response Analysis. LERA Labs Distance Muscle Testing

Some of the scientific background for our framework of testing may seem difficult to access, but it’s not.

There is a long history of pioneers in both the study of human energy and in the study of subtle human response used in real-time assessment (as in muscle testing, electrodermal scanning, biofeedback, etc.).

We use a simplified version of a test like Yoshiaki Omura’s hijacked on a laser-enhanced model. We use some of Klinghardt’s model (ART) to influence our design. Laser energetic research by Lee Cowden and others is a strong influence to us. The biophoton studies of Fritz Albert Popp are fundamental to our work. The impact of things at a distance, in the way we do it, is completely original, as is the ten layers of bioenergetic wellness we assess, and the twelve aspects of our assessment roughly matched to the energetics of the meridian fields.

In our work, you will find nothing that is copied (and that is saying a lot, if you have ever seen a modern muscle testing class), and yet, it is nothing uncommon.

Yoshiaki Omura’s work in the eighties, where he was the head of a ward at a Tokyo hospital doing studies using his muscle testing system (The BiDigital Omura Ring Test, or BDORT for short), found some application of muscle testing with seemingly a very effective design. Some of his research studies (published in his own journal – not, of course, the Lancet or a top ranked journal) found up to 97% accuracy in diagnosing cancer. He would locate the cancer using muscle testing, and then confirm with MRI.

The Omura style testing failed to take off, however; some would blame his teaching style (roughly, it is hard to access, and requires students to join the cult for several years and spend tens of thousands of dollars on testing slides to make progress, all the while following an again very cultish limited set of parameters to apply in testing), or the limited framework he applies (virtually everyone needs vitamin D, cilantro, and the exact same diet).

But his inventions (BDORT, the phenomenon of Direct Resonance to locate items in the body, some of his laser enhancements to the muscle testing process now generally out of use, his understanding of the way distance testing works, and his method of testing by photograph) are some of the most important in our field.

Electrodermal scanning, to take a detour, has quite a bit of science behind it, and again, quite a lacking veracity to that science such as would make it utterly discardable for many discerning physicians and patients. One study found it to be 96% accurate in diagnosing environmental allergens (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9430327/); another study found it not reliable even to the slightest degree (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11159567/).

The general science involves a test to measure where the body has switched into a stress state, wherein the pores of the skin suddenly and instantaneously begin to open, which can be tracked using electrodes generally placed in the hands. If effective, a practitioner could effectively test whether thousands of variables caused a stress state within only a few minutes, and which positive variables would relieve those stress states.

Understanding electrodermal scanning is useful in ascertaining what is going on in our energetic testing framework, as the same type of stimuli is offered (positive and negative variables), and the same framework of analysis is there (see if there is a response using a subtle indicator of the body’s response). However, we are measuring actual changes in human light mechanics rather than the opening of the skin.The limited aspect of response assessed in electrodermal scanning, the impact of electromagnetic fields generated during the devices, the use of variable databases that do not grow and are often created incorrectly, etc. are all concerns for those who loved the organized chaos of an analog testing room, where real research is possible. From a BERT approach, we are very concerned that electrodermal scanning primarily focuses on the 3rd layer of response in our testing system (and to a lesser degree the 8th and 7th). Thus, electrodermal scanning gets a minimal amount of data on human response.

Muscle testing is most controversial, given the history of conflicting science going back to George Goodheart’s invention of the study itself. Muscle testing and applied kinesiology are generally interchangeable terms, with the former in the modern era generally being used to deduce response to outside variables (such as toxins and supplements) and the latter coming from a background of testing structural issues, as would be used by chiropractors.

Commonly, scientific literature reviewing studies on manual muscle testing will indeed find success in diagnosing, reliably, orthopedic concerns, but failure in accurately diagnosing pathology. This would bode well for chiropractors using muscle testing to assess which vertebrae needs alignment, but not well for practitioners employing muscle testing to find pathology and prescribe medications or supplements.

Notably, most instructors of muscle testing are well aware of some degree of concerns in the field such that would prevent one from getting accurate results. Standing above others as perhaps the most stolen from author of muscle testing design, Dietrich Klinghardt (creator of Autonomic Response Testing) introduces his courses with a great deal of information about how not to do muscle testing. Indeed, in the field, it seems that it is the experts using muscle testing are the ones most concerns about the misuse of muscle testing. Proponents of muscle testing, in other word, are against inadequate techniques. In the case of Klinghardt, who’s system was stolen and incorrectly taught with other muscle testing frameworks (such as Freddie Yulin’s NRT, or Nutritional Response Testing, and others), he makes extremely clear that it is his view that most muscle testing is bullshit. For example, he tracks the way vials are exposed to patients, noting the chance that happened subsequent to the early muscle testing days when testing materials would be placed under the tongue of the patient. He finds it far less than ideal to expose patients to vials simply by placing them in the patient’s hand, and instead uses laser enhanced exposure methods, tools called signal enhancers which expand the light field emissions of variables, etc. Additionally, he notes that many patients will be “switched” for varying reasons and will be unable to produce accurate results in testing even under the best of circumstances. And, he notes that sometimes a variable that makes the patient’s arm strong can indicate a good strong or bad strong (the same for weak); thus, many problems and solutions don’t show up in muscle testing at all.

Most importantly perhaps, he questions the efficacy of placing a hand over an organ area to test whether there is underlying pathology. The least important results, seemingly, are found through this test (which is what most muscle testing systems used), while the most important tests are completed utilizing the understanding that the biophoton coherence needs to be assessed.

The assessment of biophoton coherence may seem esoteric, but it is Klinghardt’s system finding it’s place in modern literature. One of several published peer reviewed studies (by Chung MK and others) found that ART testing matched IgE food allergy testing results (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29332023/). Another study, by Klinghardt and Marco Ruggiero, found that pathology found through ART could, remarkably, be confirmed–in this study, with an ultrasound technique (https://thescipub.com/abstract/10.3844/ajisp.2017.114.126).

The existence of such studies as these, on which our work is based, is affirming.

Some of the enhancements to muscle testing utilizing a framework of understanding that assumes the relevance of biophoton coherence rely on the background provided by Fritz Albert Popp, a prolific researcher (author of over sixty publications according to his ResearchGate listing found here: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Fritz-Albert-Popp-4467447).

To take the basics of Fritz Work and summarize it in a nutshell, we think of his work with the discovery of biophotons in the eighties and its many uses later on. Kirlian photography came from this, and numerous forms of assessment. His biophoton analysis, Dietrich Klinghardt recounted, came through a machine worth half a million euros in the early eighties (no small amount of money). It tested the strength of biophoton emissions (not coherence).

When Klinghardt showed using manual muscle testing that it could be assessed whether biophoton streams were coherent or not using a simple $5 polarized camera lens (biophotons come out in vertically oriented patterns, so if they are coherent they will be unblocked by the vertical bars of a camera lens, but if they are incoherent they will not be able to pass through and this will stress the body), Fritz Popp broke down crying. He was elated that someone had made all of his work practical.

To us, this is a more fruitful direction for the field compared with machines so expensive they could rarely be used, or with misreadings of kirlian photography, aura cameras, and other biophoton related studies that simply do not pan out in a reliable way.

And, from here, we also have to differentiate what is useful and practical out of the energy science field – a world where much is claimed to have rested on the foundation of Popp’s work.

We see aura cameras (and the more scientific kirlian photograph); we see books by Donna Eden and others seemingly mapping in a scientific way the nature of the energetic field; we see healing techniques like the Reconnection relying for its background not on scientific literature but upon JJ Hurtak’s Keys of Enoch (though many studies have now been completed on the Reconnection); and we see, seemingly, and endless array of how to interpret results from different tools that claim to measure our light.

If one has a simple way to practically assess the biofield and how to improve overall light coherence, there would be few to agree that it is a simple way, and it is one that should be employed.

There are those in the spiritual or psychic fields concerned with the relevance of technology to our light at all. But our light is not built on the spiritual; it builds the spiritual. It is not something alone that indicates our connection with God, but its presence allows for our connection with God. IN some ways, it is a simple aspect of our biology. We, as practitioners, are not God, and cannot spiritually do anything. But, we can measure light and work with it in a way that allows for more aspects of connection (with the higher universe) to unfold.

There are those who use limited designs of analysis of light to make drastic and expansive conclusions. Some of this work may be valid. We think of examples of kirlian photography of the hand wherein lacking biophoton emissions in certain places on certain fingers is meant to be an indicator of problems deep within.

There are those who rely on teachings about chakras from yogic backgrounds and other teachings from spiritual healers from around the world to make their assessment. Aside from being new agey (in a way that might inhibit participation of those who aren’t comfortable with participating in something that does not affirm the existence of God), these truths are tough to apply. Granted, one assessment (of the truth of the biofield) might be real; but there has yet to be a parsing of how to apply these truths in a way that is useful. And because of the difference in assessments on how to apply such matters (one person might say digestive issues are caused by one style of emotional patterning that disrupts the light emissions of a chakra, while another might say it is a memory from early in our life inhibiting the fifth chakra causing the issue), it has failed to remain extremely clear to me that teachings not originating in science should be applied. Still, I endeavor to give proofs to things where I can; but it is a more simple matter for me to say that the biophoton expression on the eighth layer is inhibited by the consumption of a certain food than it is to verify the existence of the now dozens of chakras we might ostensibly have according to different teachers of the energetic world. Due to variability, such matters are simply tough to apply practically.

The energy science world does have well rounded truths.

We think of Robert O. Becker’s work, the Body Electric. We think of Popp’s studies on the mechanics of biophotons. We think of emerging science behind the use of some PEMF devices, and infrared technologies. Even the great body of literature on the validity of prayer, studies on the effect of our intentions (i.e., such that if people ask a computer to give them a 2 instead of a 1 with random number generators, they can actually have this effect as a group according to research), and so on play into the whole.

But on the future, there will be more adequate mapping of the effect of having coherence in the biofield, and there will be a uniting of the teachings from all these different fields. Some will be discarded, but there will remain a great sense of uniting, that the spiritual truths speaking of heaven speak of an actual heaven, and foods creating a great positive light-based response will go on to be shown in studies to create these responses.

We’re not there yet.

If you’re a Klinghardt student, are familiar with Heart Rate Variability, have heard of Yoshiaki Omura, have had a muscle testing session, etc., it could be said that you are participating in the same good: ease of access to affordable testing designs that, in real time, explore what causes positive and negative responses, is the direction of our field.

Please ask questions so we can amend the next version of this document.