EDIT: This comment ended up way longer than I set out for it to be. The TL;DR is "I used to not get it. Now I get it, but I will still discourage it." >Do they

EDIT: This comment ended up way longer than I set out for it to be. The TL;DR is "I used to not get it. Now I get it, but I will still discourage it." >Do they really not deserve a second thought? People do deserve a second thought, as do enduring ideas, but not always a third. For some of us, on some matters, this is our third thought, or thirtieth thought, or more. I am happy to put a name to my downvote, and to explain. After many grumpy years becoming increasingly more despondent about people (friends, even partners) who would carry on about this "energy" nonsense, I became equally intolerable myself. The topic would elicit angry, knee-jerk reactions and loud denouncements, if only because I was so sick and tired of it. At some point, seven years ago, give or take, I had a revelation vis-à-vis the linguistics of it all. I would let hosh speak for themselves, but for many people I have known the "energy" isn't real (or fake!) in any physical sense. They are not trying to express a strong ontological opinion about a human's ability to control a specific-yet-ill-defined force of nature. They are using the word as an all-encompassing metaphor for a large, flexible, ever-changing collection of experiences, both sensory and internal: sometimes your subtle body language, or emotional cues (intentional or unintentional), or their own projections of your mental state. There's probably a more precise vocabulary for any specific instance or combination of sensations, but many people are satisfied by sorting their experiences into just "feels good" and "feels bad", or the slightly-better-sounding "positive energy" and "negative energy". I still remember someone who befriended me recounting the why. They had taken the initiative to walk through a large gathering, and seek me out because they "felt the energy I was sending them". I definitely was not in control of any energy, never mind sending it. It took time to pry out the specifics, but ultimately what they meant was that I looked friendly and seemed engaged in the conversation I was having. I don't doubt that most people making statements about energy that they feel (or are "sending"), are genuinely having some internal experience and are describing it. But they aren't producing vibrations from their energy gland and evoking energy particles towards my energy gland. At least thus far that is not a thing we know humans to have and do. Even after realizing this, and becoming more contained in my reactions, I still find the term imprecise at best, and an enabler of harm at worst. I will continue to discourage it whenever I can. To directly address hosh's phrasing, the closest I could come to agreeing-to-disagree on "Subtle energy is real though", would be to phrase it as "The idea of a 'subtle energy' is a useful metaphor that sometimes helps some people reason about their experiences". Saying it "is real" in a definitive physical manner is ridiculous, by the precise dictionary definition: "deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd".