Precisely. Everyone is telling you that camping wouldn't be in the rules of the challenge, but the point is that the challenge seemed like an odd solution to th

Precisely. Everyone is telling you that camping wouldn't be in the rules of the challenge, but the point is that the challenge seemed like an odd solution to the problem. Obviously a person can just choose to challenge themselves with 24 hours of no stimulation, that's fine as a weird, maybe interesting experiment, and I'm glad the author wrote about it. It's just that the author seem to have a different reason in mind when he created the challenge. It's a little bit like the commonly-referenced XY problem in programming. Someone thinks that they really need to do Y in order to solve X, without having stepped back and confirm that Y really is necessary to solving x. Three days after the challenge, how is the author going up be different? Most likely they're never going to do that again. But a week-long "experiment" with getting outdoors more often might have turned into lasting change.