I've been meditating since the 70's. Nothing I see today exists in the meditation world without a taint of snake oil and predatory capitalism. We live in a conman's paradise.

There are multiple scientific studies show the positive affects of meditation and a myriad of health benefits....

I'm not sure what "gurus" you're seeing but it's not really relevant to objective studies that show it works and makes changes in the brain. I'm sure they are making some claims that are pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean meditation in its entirety is just a "feel nice" routine.

Here's just one of several I found in a quick search-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4895748/

I think of meditation as exercise for your brain. Just like you need to physically exercise to "prepare" your body you need to be doing stuff to keep your brain from going haywire and jumping from though to though like its hopped up on caffeine all the time. There are various ways to do "train your brain" but meditation/mindfulness is one very good way to do it.

There's also a lot of studies showing that meditation can cause harm.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-021-01503-2

True... but this lends credence to the fact that it's not just a cult pseudoscience. It's actually having an effect positive or negative on people.

I did not argue that it was inert. I actually argued that

1.) not really doing what enthusiasts claimed it was specifically doing. 2.) making people become develop bizarre beliefs and generally become irrational.

It can be a cult pseudoscience while not being inert.

fixing terrible writing

1.) meditation was not really always doing what enthusiasts claimed it was doing.

2.) it was making people develop bizarre beliefs and generally become irrational.

PMC has a lot of junk journals. Don't fall for them, especially if you want to use "Dr" in your nick. Most meditation research is rather low quality. Don't go around just googling your confirmation bias. One would not regard any journal on Ayurveda to have much scientific merit. It's essentially quackery. Their standards for peer review are low. This "paper" uses oxymorons such as "Vedic science".

Take this text for instance: "A feedback loop to the DNA starts a new cycle to provide whatever is needed for the activities of the cell. In meditation, the feedback loop to the deep inner Self (the seat of knowledge, like DNA) provides inner peace and bliss, which removes the accumulated stresses of life and improves overall health."

That gibberish would be an instant reject from any serious reviewer. This is not how science papers are written. This is the snake oil of the meditation world I was talking about. Minus the citations, this qualifies at best as a Facebook post. This might be an example of how meditation makes an educated man talk silly.

I also know several meditators. Anecdotally, not one improved his powers of concentration with meditation. They procrastinate and get distracted like everyone else, all while claiming they feel so much focused after meditation. Maybe, meditation makes them feel focused, while not actually being so.

Ya, the meditation scene is 99.99% pure bullshit. And that's a crime.

First job for anybody trying to figure out this stuff is to scrape away the gunk and find a pearl of truth.

You have to do your own research. There is no substitute.

> You have to do your own research.

Generally a bad idea. Usually leads to quackery, pseudoscience beliefs etc. Individuals are much worse than institutions on matters of research.

Maybe if you have a dozen peers around to compare notes.

But the subject is esoteric. Peers are in short supply.

> But the subject is esoteric. Peers are in short supply.

Yes, which is why individuals cannot do research alone. We need a well organized effort with proper subject recruitment so that there is a sufficient pool to investigate and all the research precautions are taken.

Modern research does not just happen casually and individually. It is a sophisticated activity with a lot of planning and organization.

The subject is esoteric therefore individuals cannot do research alone?

I don't see how that follows.

The esoteric/mystical stuff always turned out to be little more than woo. So all the more reason to do "research" in a rigorous way. Individual research ends up little more than making up things. It cannot really be called "research" at all.

The "spiritual experience" is in fact rather common. Nothing esoteric about it, only the wacky explanations of it are. There is a lot of mainstream research about it that "individual researchers" just ignore.

What's popular on YouTube and what's good are very often not the same. You're seeing what YouTube is trying to optimize for... it's not surprising that it's manipulative, exaggerating, populist nonsense. YouTube could do this for literally any topic. The YT algorithm's take on the best meditation advice doesn't need to define what meditation is to you. Topics which should be "boring" get this treatment on social media. Find your information elsewhere or figure out how to filter and ignore the nonsense.

I don't disagree. This is hacker news. We all know how skewed social media is. We all understand the biases of recommendation algorithms.

However, my point is not one of presenting a representative sample, but rather easily accessible and video instances of highly visible subjects to illustrate.

There is plenty of scientific literature on meditation induced mental disorders for what you prefer. I have looked at that too.