No. What's being discussed here has nothing to do with the pseudoscience of chi or chakras.

We're seeing how the west is discovering those "chakras" and unlike the east, where the understanding of this topic is very broad and fuzzy, due to lack of experience in most cases, the west will develop a very narrow, but very sharp knowledge. Pair that with the thick dark cloud of nihilism enveloping the west today, and it's not hard to see where this will end up. Levin seems to have discovered what the east calls "etheric double" - a sort of living blueprint that guides the construction of any organic lifeform. That blueprint is of magnetic nature, and although it's not quite the same thing that flows in our copper wires, it easily interacts with the type of magnets at our disposal. From this point the discovery of inflow and outflow sinks of that "bioelectricity" is near.

Can you explain what you mean by "a very narrow, but very sharp knowledge"

It's well captured in the Feynman's quote: "shut up and calculate". When a typical western scientist sees a flatworm regrowing itself from pieces, his mind thinks of the mechanics of this process and little else. Someone with the eastern mindset is going to think about lots of fuzzy abstractions, such as the nature of lifeforce, but will not bother with boring details.

OMG here we go with the marginalization term "Pseudoscience". Stereotyping things you don't understand doesn't make you a smart person.

Chi and chakras are very well understood to not be science, so "pseudoscience" is a very accurate description.

"Science" is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Things investigated by science are not in themselves science. That doesn't make them pseudoscience.

Its funny how people use terms to confirm their own particular bias. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Protoscience or a mix of abductive and inductive reasoning should not be entirely dismissed because it is not yet deductible. Often the process of "knowing" and developing axiomatic systems comes from first unknowing and grasping, and that doesn't even get into the incompleteness of axiomatic systems. We are refiners, we refine; your diamonds come from the dirt and are the next diamond's dirt.

If you believe chi to be some kind of pseudoscience rather than something easily experienced you're in no position to tell us how it relates to what's being discussed here, as you demonstrate your ignorance.

Are you the kind that would've scoffed and made the same condescending remarks when scientists proposed to study what buddhist monks were doing?

I for one am happy people actually took the time to investigate their practices, including fascinating things like "tummo". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tummo#Scientific_investigation

This extremely close-minded, arrogant, and disdainful attitude is utterly unscientific.