Conference hydra::dejavu

    No, but the spontaneous human combustion phenomenon is one with
    a long history.  Most of the stories are of individuals, usually
    elderly and isolated/alone who literally catch on fire.
                 
    Usually, the human and the immediate surroundings are scorched,
    but nothing else.  A scenario might be a person sitting in a chair
    catches fire but the chair only gets scorched.
    
    The preacher could have dropped the Bible he was holding, by the
    way, proving nothing one way or 'tother.
    
    There are several hypotheses on this, but no truly satisfactory
    explanations.   
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I just checked the AP newsline for the last 24 hours and couldn't
    find any headlines that seemed to relate.
    
    The facts about SHC, as near as I've been able to tell (and I am
    not particularly expert here):
    
    1) No knowledgable person seems to argue with the fact that this
    *does* occur.  (Which doesn't stop less-than-knowledgable people
    from asserting that it is nonesense).
    
    2) It is reported much more often than it actually occurs.  E.G.
    a case widely reported in the supermarket tabloids which failed
    to mention the bullet holes in the body and the nearby can of gasoline.
    
    3) This seems to be a relatively frequent fantasy of elderly people
    on strong medication, for some reason.  They will report to their
    family that this occured to another patient, who, in reality is
    either still around, or who died of normal causes (no I don't think
    a cover-up is likely).
    
    4) Reliable witnesses for the initiation of the phenomena seem hard
    to come by.  Generaly only the grisley remains are found.
    Occasionally, smoke or sounds brings witnesses to the site.
    
    5) The "spontanaity" of the phenomena can be questioned.  Reliable
    reports (e.g., forensic reports) frequently involve a nearby source
    of heat (e.g, an active fireplace).
    
    6) Conventional explanations seem to revolve around the flamability
    of human fat *under the right conditions*.  Supporters of these
    theories claim that a common thread in many of the reliable reports
    is that the victim was obese.
    
    7) In my mind (and I repeat, I am not expert -- I've picked up dribs
    and drabs of information over the years) the conventional explanations
    leave a number of questions unanswered: (1) Why do people, even
    obese people, generally just (pardon the gruesomness) char while
    very occasionally they burst into flames instead?  (2) It doesn't
    *seem* to me from what I've seen that the victims are necessarily
    near to the source of heat.  Do they, after their clothes catch
    fire, walk across the room and sit in their easy chair?  (3) Can
    human fat burning under the relatively poor exposure to air which
    would seem to be the conditions in SHC produce enough heat to
    disintegrate bone (which takes a *lot* of heat)?  Reports frequently
    involve black sooty smoke which would seem to indicate poor combustion
    for at least part of the "fuel".  (4) Why do the reports seem to
    involve such extremely localized fire damage?  I can certainly
    understand that if the house catches on fire, it wouldn't occur
    to anyone that SHC had occured, but many of the reports seem to
    indicate very intense local heat, but with only minor fire damage
    to objects more than a foot or so away?
    
    				Topher

    I'm starting my diet NOW.

    	I can't help but imagine what the congregation thought, particularly
    if the preacher was expounding to his flock that those with sin
    in their hearts will burn in the fires of Hell, and POOF!
    

    There have also been some Fortean speculations that there are certain
    people called "pyrotics" (or "fire raisers") who can somehow cause
    things to combust through force of will.  If a pyrotic "zapped"
    a victim, that one could burn as in SHC scenarios; it's just that
    the combustion wouldn't really be spontaneous in such cases.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	Like Stephen King's FIRESTARTER?
    
    	Larry
    

    I've read two sf books about SHC.  One of them gave a "scientic" 
    explanation about some kind of chemical or metabolic imbalance and in 
    the other, it was aliens from Mercury who did it by telepathy.  
    I'll see if I can come up with the name of the first one.
    (Maybe a note in the SF notesfile?)  The second was by Bob Shaw.

    I've seen pictures in the strange phenomena books.  They sure looked
    weird.

    wmb

    I SAW THE HEADLINE IN ONE OF THOSE GROCERY STORE "NEWSPAPERS".
    THE HEADLINE WAS 'PREACHER EXPLODES WHILE GIVING SERMON'.
    I'LL BET THAT FREAKED THE CONGREGATION.

    	That is basically what I said in Note 236.4.
    
    	Larry
    

    It seems to be the belief of scientists that all fundamental particles
    of nature decay (sooner or later); and there is a probability associated
    with an individual particle as to when it will go poof.

    With so many humans on this earth, it would seem, there is a high degree
    of probability that somewhere some proton or neutron in somebody's body
    will decay, and convert to energy.

    I wonder if this is the reason for the phenomenon of spontaneous combus-
    tion


    -- Rav Karwan

    Wow!  That is really interesting.  Particle physics is soooo
    facinating.  

    Re .11, .12:
    
    Highly unlikely.  I don't think enough energy could be released
    to start the combustion.
    
    One theory of a pyrotic's abilities is that the pyrotic is a
    telekineticist who adds motion, but random motion -- kinetic energy
    without additional momentum.  This would appear as heat...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    The most recent issue of the CoEvolution Quarterly had a five-page
    article on SHC, complete with pictures for the gore freaks.
    
    k moeller

    re: .14
    
    I am interested in what the Sufis state as the real reasons for
    SHC.
    
    		Dave

    	There is a theory that human beings will evolve someday, in the
    very far future, into beings of pure energy and thought.
    
    	Perhaps this SHC is due to some poor people's bodies having
    this highly advanced evolutionary trait, and they die because their
    minds are not advanced enough to handle the sudden energy
    surge/conversion.
    
    	Larry
    

    re 236.15...
    see 236.16

    
    re:.16  Perhaps this theory is not so wild after all.  I remember
    reading last year about scientists discovering a microscopic swamp
    creature that was classified as an ANIMAL (not a plant - I believe
    it was called a Stentorin) and that photosynthesized (lived on light).
    Give this creature a few million years of evolution and perhaps it will
    evolve into a being who not only exists on light but is composed
    primarily of light.
    
    Now, if a creature like this can develop on our planet, perhaps
    a similar being can or has already developed in another cosmic
    environment.  Perhaps the "beings of light" that the soviet cosmonauts
    saw from their space station Salyut 7 were just such creatures.
    Perhaps we are in the early stages of a vast evolutionary chain
    leading to a similar end?
    
    (Then again,.....perhaps not ;-)
    				mary

    Re .last_few:
    
    Combustion would imply a release of energy in the surrounding
    environment.  If a human body becomes a conduit for a vast amount
    of energy that burns it, well, that's possible.  (or it could have
    been briefly inhabited by something like a fire-elemental, if you'd
    like to think of those.)
    
    A creature composed of energy, however, would be likely to hold
    onto it, because unless there's as much energy going into its "body"
    as is being removed by radiation, it would dissipate quickly.  This
    would mean the lifespan of such a creature would be in nanoseconds,
    unless it was continually renewed.  Thus, a "light" being would
    probably appear "dark" to us, if it was stable.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .-2, What a curious logical step,  akin to saying because I
    continually breathe air/write notes/drink water, given a
    few million years of evolution, maybe I'll consist purely of
    air/VT200 keys/H2O.
    
    Evolution will select those characteristics of the creature that
    tend to make it use the light it absorbs more efficiently, or absorb
    more light, or whatever - it will not cause the creature to become
    made out of light.
    
    /Bevin
              

    Thats true Bevin .... (but not nearly as much fun)  How about if
    you eat carrots for a million years,.. will you take on an orange
    color?  Will what you use for energy/food adapt your physical being?
    Will you grow fangs or gills or learn to breathe air?  
    What if your physical being is not like ours to begin with and subject
    to physical laws beyond our own?  What if you were conceived in
    an environment like our sun (yea, yea, thats the ticket...). 
    
    What if evolution works differently off planet?  What if "lifespan/time"
    is relavent only to the forces of our own planet?  What if our
    assumptions are based on laws of physics and nature as we know them to be.
    What if they are different in another solar system, or galaxy, or
    universe or...   (there goes that curious mind again....   :-) 
     
    
    	

    Re .21:
    
    If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.
    
    To some extent, we can figure how they wouldn't be the same.
    (For example, we figure how the universe would work differently
    if the gravitational constant or the charge on the electron were
    different.)
    
    We can make educated guesses about how familiar processes might
    work in unfamiliar settings.  (What would evolution result in
    if the environment were thus-and-so?)
    
    But to questions such as "What would things be like if the laws
    of nature were different?", the only possible answer is, "Things
    would be different."  Not very constructive.
    
    	-Neil

    VERY constructive Neil.  We live in a world where the smallest
    particle MIGHT be strings and the way that the strings MOVE 
    might determine what atomic particle they are classified as.
    We are goverened by four KNOWN forces.  We THINK there might
    be as many as 27 dimensions beyond our own four dimensional 
    world.  Change gravity a little or the electro-magnetic force
    a little or whatever and what have we got? 
    		.....  something different...
    
    (ain't it grand? :-)
    mary

    Re .21:
    
    A smaller point:  certain laws of physics and chemistry seem to
    hold throughout the observable universe.  To postulate that maybe
    they don't "elsewhere" is to hit the "let's pretend" state of
    metaphysical musings.  It's easier to postulate a parallel space/time
    continuum in which these "alternate" laws exist [see the "dimensions"
    note] than to try to glue them to this continuum.
    
    
    In a story, someone once said, "I can postulate a piece of chocolate
    cake orbiting the Sun in the midst of the asteroid belt."  So can
    I; but the chances one really is there is infinitesimal.
    
    So are "other laws" in this cosmos.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    We know that certain of our laws of physics do NOT hold throughout
    the observable universe.  For example: the event horizon of a black
    hole.  We are not even sure what a black hole is. We know that "time"
    as we know it is not the same off planet.  The "let's pretend"
    state of metaphysical musings is what theoretical physics is all
    about and we have so much left to learn, why get serious now?
    :-)

    The laws of physics hold at the event horizon of a black hole. 
    Certain of the approximations that are useful under most conditions
    are bad approximations in that situation.  In a few cases we don't
    know any better approximations.  Serious problems arise in this
    latter category only if something called a "naked singularity" exists.
    A naked singularity is basically a black hole *without* an event
    horizon (grossly simplified description).  Noone has come up with
    a sequence of events which would produce a naked singularity.  It
    is generally felt that naked singularities are impossible -- excluded
    from existence by the universal physical laws, but noone has proven
    that yet.
    
    We most certainly know what a black hole is since we made it up.
    We have since observed things which look something like the thing
    we made up might look like.  It is thought that these are black
    holes.
    
    Time as we know it (i.e., as it is understood by physics) is the
    same everywhere.
    
    There are types of speculation which are fruitful and others which
    are not.  Speculations which are completely open-ended (like "maybe
    physics is different elsewhere") or semantically meaningless (like
    "maybe evolution operates by different laws elsewhere" -- then in
    what sense is it evolution?) are not useful.  You need tighter
    hypothoses (like "What would be the consequences if this 'constant'
    were actually a function of local energy density?  What limits can
    we place on the basis of existing observations on the form of that
    function?").
    
    				Topher

    Oh Topher, you're no fun at all.  I'm not going to play with you
    anymore....  Put something on that naked singularity and classify
    those approximations.  
    		:-)
    		mary
    

    The following is from WEEKLY WORLD NEWS, November 18, 1986.

    Front page headlines:

        The most bizarre case of spontaneous combustion ever!
    	        PREACHER EXPLODES DURING SERMON
        Horrified congregation sees evangelist blow up in the pulpit

    Inside page headline:

            PREACHER EXPLODES INTO FLAMES IN THE PULPIT

    	In the most bizarre case of human spontaneous combustion ever 
    witnessed, a fire-and-brimstone preacher exploded in flames - just
    as he warned his followers they were headed for the blazing inferno
    of hell!
    	According to news reports published in Austria, evangelist Franz
    Lueger was incinerated into a pile of ashes before the horrified eyes
    of his congregation "by flames that burst from his own body."
    	Incredibly, though the evangelist was consumed by the intense
    firestorm, the Holy Bible he was holding was no harmed.  In fact,
    not a single page was so much as singed according to news reports.
    	"We're still in a state of shock," said elderly Anne Braun, who
    witnessed the bizarre scene in Lueger's church on the outskirts of 
    Vienna.
    	In an interview with television newsmen, Mrs Braun said that there
    was a strange smell in the church shortly before the minister was
    engulfed in flames.
    	"There was an electrical order in the air, like a burning wire or
    a short in an appliance.  There was a bright flash from his chest and
    then he screamed and slumped forward.  It was then he literally
    exploded into a ball of fire.  I still can't believe this happened.  It
    was horrible.
    	"We all ran outside because we thought the church would burn to the
    ground.  But it didn't, and when we went back inside, nothing else had
    been touched by fire - just Reverend Lueger."
    	Statements given to police by each of the 60 church members were
    identical and seemed to indicate only one possible cause for the 
    incredible inferno - spontaneous human combustion.
    	An inquest into the incident, however, resulted in a verdict of 
    death by fire of "unknown cause and origin."
    	The report stated in part:
    	"While it is true there were no open flames or high voltage 
    electrical wires in the immediate vicinity when Mr. Lueger was 
    incinerated, and while the inquest has uncovered no logical explanation
    for his horrifying death, the inquest hesitates to fix the blame on
    spontaneous human combustion.
    	"However," the report concluded, "the inquest does recognize the
    possibility that some mysterious and unknown force may have played a 
    role in Mr Lueger's death by fire."
    	"Those of us who were there that terrible night know well what that
    mysterious force is," Mrs Braun scoffed.  "It was the work of Satan.
    He got his revenge on Reverend Lueger for trying to save our souls."

    There is a photo of Mr Lueger prior to his demise.

    If the story in the previous article is factual, I can't believe that 
    there is anything other than a logical, scientific explanation for 
    death of Mr Lueger.  I don't believe that Satan goes around setting 
    people on fire anymore than I believe that God strikes people with 
    lightning.

    Mike

    I keep wondering who poured the gasoline on him...
    

    re .29, .30:
    
    What was the material of his clerical robes composed of?  It's possible
    that it might be something that was imflammable.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	Isn't the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS a tabloid newspaper? 
    
    	If so, then I would really question it's authenticity of the
    story.
    
    	Larry
    

    Ever hear of poetic justice?

    If all sixty descriptions of what happened were all identical,
    with no variations, and no one saying "I didn't quite see what
    was happening.", then I would be deeply suspicious.  I'd start
    by being suspicious of the newspaper report.
    
    							Ann B.

    
    
          This one sounds almost as flaky as the usual "Brother Wilhelm
    Abbotsford, a 16th-century English monk, was seen by four competent
    witnesses to suddenly rise up, fly out the window of the room and
    fly back in the other window, landing unhurt."
    
           On what date and at what time did this occur?
    
           What civic authority (police, coroner, etc) investigated?
    
           Where is the report on file? (What is the report number?)
    
           What does it say?
    
           Who signed it? (Is there such a person?)
           
           How come none of the regular news media picked this up?
    
              etc   etc   etc

    	Like I asked in 236.32, is the newspaper which reported this
    a tabloid?  If so, that should put a lot of doubt on the story right
    there.
    
    	Larry
    

    It is a tabloid.  There is one interesting aspect which places this
    report one cut above the usual tabloid stories.
    
    Since successful suits started being filed against the tabloids,
    they have started switching the locales of their more spectacular
    stories to places that are very difficult to check on, e.g., the
    boonies of "Red" China, or of South America.
    
    Austria is a little too accessible -- I suspect that we are getting
    a *very* distorted view of a real story, very likely a most mundane
    one.
    
    From what I know of Christian theology -- the idea that Satan would
    personally perform a "miracle" and strike down a minor preacher
    who simply annoyed him would not be endorsed as likely by any major
    church.
    
    	   		Topher				

    Hey Topher, how about if God struck down a minor preacher who has
    been annoying Him.  :-)

    Re .38:
    
    With that argument, I rather suspect it wouldn't be limited to one.
    ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

From:	SHARE::STANLEY      "New Speedway Boogie" 10-NOV-1986 14:53
To:	CANYON::MOELLER
Subj:	The text you sent to me.

Karl,

I thought you should post this since it is in your words.  I think others
will also enjoy reading it.

		Dave

From:	CANYON::MOELLER      "Welcome to Tucson. Now go home."  7-NOV-1986 16:46
To:	6882::STANLEY
Subj:	RE: Sufis and SHC

Hello Dave. I had second thoughts about the Sufi reference, and got it 
out within one minute. You must be fast..

The Sufis state that SHC is intimately involved with the combustee's 
personal state and level of absorbtion in God (Fana-fi-Allah) and that
it (SHC) is a great gift. It was mentioned that many of the combustees
(can I say that?) are elderly and live alone. This is a perfect environment
for reflection. There is a type of heat (Jelal) that comes with God's
energy. There are high people whose body temperature is such that you
can barely touch them.. I know, I met two. Well, SHC is the result of
a sudden inrush of God's energy. As I mentioned in those hotly debated
original notes on Sufism, people have been known to die during the
'Sama' or dancing/music sessions. SHC is only seen with those with no
teacher moderating the energy between them (the combustees) and God.

karl moeller

I seem to recall from the _Whole_Life_Times_ (a.k.a. _CoEvolution_Quarterly_)
 article that many victims of SHC are heavy drinkers.  Not exactly an enlight-
  ening habit . . .
   <_Jym_>

    
    
    Re: .31
    
    Sorry Steve, but I can't accept the burning robe theory.
    But to be sure we'd have to know if his bones had burnt
    and if the robe was hot enough to do that, etc. 
    
    guy
    
    
    
    
    

    Re .28:
    
    In this case, on a second reading, something caught my eye:
    
    >	In an interview with television newsmen, Mrs Braun said that there
    >was a strange smell in the church shortly before the minister was
    >engulfed in flames.
    >	"There was an electrical order in the air, like a burning wire or
    >a short in an appliance.  There was a bright flash from his chest and
    >then he screamed and slumped forward.  It was then he literally
    >exploded into a ball of fire.  I still can't believe this happened.  It
    >was horrible.
     
    Understanding that we don't know the setup of the church, there's
    a somewhat improbable possibility: ball lightning.  Ball lightning,
    which is more common in Europe than in the United States, though
    still quite rare.  If a ball-lightning plasmoid had discharged itself
    on the victim, the effects would have been much as described.
    
    The key here is that the witness noticed an "electrical odor," probably
    ozone.  Ball lightning plasmoids have done strange things, and have
    been reported to drift, speed up, hop, and float, following above
    conductors.  If one came from behind the victim, well, it's _possible_.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.