Yes, "how will scammers use this information to trick people into woowoo?"

But we already have plenty to think about.

such as?

That perhaps the people who claim to see auras were in fact telling the truth due to having the right genetics to be able to observe this light.

They don't. It's normal visible light spectrum, just extremely weak. Nobody can see it with their eyes.

Supposedly the human eye can detect a single photon under the right conditions though.

Not really... https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/08/08/105518/the-thorn...

Or, yes, under ideal conditions, maybe sometimes. 51.6% chance of being right in a yes/no question will not help in this case.

Nobody is a pretty strong claim.

Human bodies are different in many ways.

This is like saying: "Nobody can jump over this 200m wall. - Nobody is a pretty strong claim." It's really beyond the scope of human vision overall, rather than "really hard".

Those are ... two different things?

People can pick up single photons, this is definitely within the realm of possibility.

Btw, your level zero snark can be defeated by the "on which planet?" argument.

Or perhaps there just happened to be an overlap between the nonsense they believe in and some shred of truth that you have to squint really hard to make work.

That's not even the "BS" part (for me), but what they "derive" from all of that.

Such as, maybe there's more to life than just chemical reactions.

Where is the indication that this light (which is barely visible to instruments, let alone humans) does not come from "just chemical reactions"?

This finding is certainly interesting, but it does not at all contribute to "spiritual thinking".

Bioluminescence IS a natural chemical reaction, though.

Are you implying the light discussed in the paper is supernatural?

More, how? Come on, be more exact.

You be more exact; I’ve spent plenty of time in internet woo-woo ideas and I don’t think I’ve heard of auras since the nineties, reading about Kirlian photographs from a hundred years before that.

Here you are saying that some unspecified group is deriving some unspecified ideas which are, you claim, life riskingly serious.

Just for the sake of making HN interesting to read, can you stop with the one sentence comments that vaguely imply you know something we don’t, and be more exact, explanatory and specific?

no ;)