Thank you for taking the time for writing this. I agree with you, subtle energy is not physical. I have written about it in other comments ... and like you, I

Thank you for taking the time for writing this. I agree with you, subtle energy is not physical. I have written about it in other comments ... and like you, I feel fatigued about having to explain this all the time. Since you took the time to write about it, I will try my best to write it here too: I do not mean that the idea of subtle energy is a useful metaphor. Subtle energy is real. Subtle energy is not the same as the physical energy described in physics. What I mean by "real" is not the same "real" as in a definitive, physical manner. That gets into the areas beyond "extraordinary". If you already find the idea of "subtle energy is real" is ridiculous, I don't really see the point in continuing down this line of discussion. One of the characteristics about subtle energy that is not described by physical energy is that subtle energy carries information, among them, emotions, concepts, awareness, sentience, etc. It will move and change based upon the information it carries. Consciousness (another problematic term) can experience and sense subtle energy, but it is in turn, affected by it. In other words, the physical description of science is a useful metaphor for describing subtle energy. Unfortunately, you are right in that many people would borrow from authority implied by using scientific terms to lend validity to these claims. That is harmful, not just in the sense that people will take action on it and do stupid things. It is also harmful in the sense that it assumes the scientific method can describe everything ... and I don't think it is capable of the adequately exploring subtle energy or consciousness. (But there are people who are trying; more props to them). There is no "energy gland". I get annoyed when I read up claims like that. Rather, consciousness is generating and receiving subtle energy. There may be such a thing as subtle anatomy -- non-physical structures that can transceive subtle energy; but they are a part of the makeup of consciousness. "Gland" is not really a useful metaphor to describe them, because it is more useful the distinguish the physical gland, and the consciousness of that particular gland. I have serious doubts that this stuff can ever by objectively explored. I doubt any mechanistic form of technology can really measure it. I started qualifying the term "energy" with "subtle energy". People are then free to agree or disagree, even reject the whole notion of "subtle energy".