SUPPORTED
Backed by systematic reviews.
Evidence standards
Evidence standards
A label says what kind of claim you are reading. It is not a ranking of cultures, and it is not a medical verdict.
The five labels
These are the labels used in the issues. Issue 1 uses them for slow breathing, the Yoga Sutras, and the studies cited there.
EMERGING
Promising but early.
TRADITIONAL
What a tradition teaches.
PHILOSOPHICAL
Interpretation, not a testable fact.
SPECULATIVE
A reasonable idea not yet shown.
Editorial standards
01. Source discrimination
Careful attribution
We distinguish between preliminary laboratory trials, long held traditional texts, and philosophical questions. We do not treat preliminary findings as medical certainties.
02. Honest authorship
No invented bios or counts
We do not fabricate subscriber counts, fictitious expert testimonials, or fake credentials. What you read is what we are genuinely researching.
03. Educational inquiry
Observation, not prescription
Our publication is an educational field guide for curious minds, not a clinical treatment or health protocol. We do not publish breath retention instructions or therapeutic promises.
04. Clean prose
Unhurried clarity
We prioritize readable, thoughtful writing that respects the reader's time and intelligence.