Comments on: The “Incorruptible” Hambo Lama Itigelov

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:13:27 +0000

“This 3000-day ritual called for a starvation diet and exercise to lose all body fat, then a slow self-poisoning with an arsenic rich diet, followed by an entombment and final starvation.”

I don’t know if that was exactly what he did… he looks pretty fat to me !

By: sitting by the river

sitting by the river — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:07:24 +0000

A few years ago, there was an “incorruptible” on display at The Bower’s Musuem Tibetan exhibition. Very cool. They said he was a monk who had consumed only tree bark before he died. I didn’t think of arsenic. I thought of pitch and sap, because this guy looked like he had been varnished.

By: Arturo Ruiz

Arturo Ruiz — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:12:51 +0000

The most importan achievement of buddhism is a mental state. Sadly, some people use some kinds of tricks to prove their faith, because they have not a correct understanding of the Dharma. Buddhism is not a religion but a technique used to reach a blissfull sate, it not need faith but understanding and when there is not people do missclaims like this.

By: Ian Mason

Ian Mason — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:41:09 +0000

No, for many religions LIFE is the ultimate corrupt form. The goal is to escape from living. Cloisters, hermits’ cells and other types of “holy orders” have been sanctuaries for anorectics through millenia. If you think that these monks can’t have the self discipline to torture themselves to death then you haven’t been in close contact with an anorectic.
Ian Mason

By: Russell Bynum

Russell Bynum — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:51:54 +0000

If they were that “incorruptible”, why did they die? Is not death the ultimate form of our corruptibility? While the natural aspects to this topic is truly a case study in personal determination and self-sacrifice, in reference to the monks, the supernatural end smacks of self-delusion. At least the monks seem to strive for this, but there is nothing miraculous; the wording by observes certainly doesn’t help and leave one to question their powers of observation. Funny how expectations or standards degrade just to save face…

By: Auto-mumificação | Massa Crítica

Auto-mumificação | Massa Crítica — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:10:37 +0000

[...] Skepticblog Tags: [...]

By: Brian Dunning

Brian Dunning — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:16:14 +0000

To clarify the 3000-day process:

The first 1000 days is a low-fat diet and strenuous exercise to lose body fat. The second 1000 days is the starvation diet of urushi tea and bark, containing the arsenic. Then they seal themselves inside the tomb and die, and the third 1000 days is their decomposition, at the end of which the other monks open the tomb to see if mummification took place.

By: April

April — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:52:52 +0000

BillDarryl said “…drop dead far sooner than planned…”.

I say: That’s probably a good portion of why there’ve been so few “successful” attempts.

By: BillDarryl

BillDarryl — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:03:13 +0000

Ranson

Well, I think we all agree whether it’s 3, 30, or 3,000 days, it’s pretty durn crazy to deliberately poison oneself in what appears to be a slow, painful process, just to become a mummy.

I was just thinking that self poisoning over 10 years would probably be ineffectual – in that time frame I’d assume you’d develop a tolerance, or drop dead far sooner than planned if you don’t.

But if the self poisoning is just at the end, that would make sense (in the framework of the details, that is. Nothing in the whole equation makes any kind of “sense” to me at all!)

By: Ranson

Ranson — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:32:32 +0000

Remember, BillDarryl, religion makes people do crazy things on occasion. Why should Buddhists be any different?