While I don't feel inclined to spend any considerable amount of time dwelling on something so insignificant in the world right now, I do want to give my take on the matter.
David Blaine is a magician who gets paid for his "stunts", "magic", or whatever else you want to call it. Just because he chose to starve himself for 44 days, doesn't mean that he has to share any profits with anyone. Of course anytime one does share the profits of their "work" it's a blessing, but why slam the guy for this. There are people with tons of money in show business who can donate to charity and most of them probably do. Do we really know this as fact unless we know them personally. No, we only know what the media tells us. And the media are the ones out to make a buck.
Does anyone REALLY know the terms of the "deal" that Blaine made or if he gave any money to charity or not? I think that without any facts, it's hard to judge him on this matter.
Whether or not he needed some kind of spiritual help to finish this stunt is unknown to anyone. And why is this such an issue? The only person that needs to worry about that is Blaine. He's the guy who performed the stunt.
Did Blaine REALLY starve for 44 days or did he have some kind of food "substance" hidden somewhere in the box? Was there something in the water? WHO CARES! Look at him when he went in, then look at him when he came out. I would say that he looked in pretty bad shape, kind of how you might look after not EATING for 44 days.
Look, he chose to do something that most people think is nuts, for personal reasons and for attention. Where is the fault in any of that? He's a celebrity, and celebrities use this attention to climb the level of status. I guess he got the attention he was looking for.

I will update my earlier opinion with that of an expert. In Saturday's Daily Mail, Paul McKenna, the very succesful hypnotist to the stars (totally self-taught, not like me ), says 'I'ts a trick, I know exactly how he did it'.
If he said this in court without explaining himself, he'd be sent home with a tablet or two and told to take it easy, but in the outside world it still implies he knows, but doesn't want to upset his 'luvvie' friends who may ostracise him for speaking out.

As I am not a fan of David Blaine and not a hater of him, would like to say my views on the magician.

David Blaine is a magician. He is earning his money, isn't he ? Everybody on Earth has to earn money, only Blaine's way is a little different. David Blaine will want to use the money for himself because he's earned it. He's stayed 44 days there under extreme pain and you would naturally expect him to take the money which he earned himself.

To revisit the question I asked a while ago: Why does everyone think he went without food.?

A back of an envelope calculation suggests that if he simply stopped eating for a month he should have lost in the region of 3 - 3.5 stone. As he was suspended outside in the wind the heat loss from his body would have been higher than normal and his body would have been burning itself to keep him warm. Thus 3 - 3.5 stone is a low estimate.

Clearly Mr. Blaine was not exactly plumptious when he started his trick, he did not have the body fat to burn in the first place, he must have been burning muscle. Yet there was no film evidence that he was anything like as close to starvation as one would expect.

Agree with you Tielhard - the visual evidence isn't a man whose starved for a month!
By the way where is he supposed to be now! (is he still undergoing treatment )

I have to say that I do believe he went without food, but I won't argue that he wasn't given some nutrients in the fluids he was drinking. The wind factor, I think, played a more minor role than you might think. Unless I hear from an "expert" on malnutrition who states that what he set out to do was impossible, I have to give the guy the benifit of the doubt. Regardless, it was quite an unorthodox move to begin with.
BTW, Tielhard, I'm not saying you're not an expert on the matter, but I wasn't sure.

I don't really know much about this man except what I have read here but I do what to say that 44 days without food isn't that exceptional. Back in the early 80s the Irish hunger strikers did it. Of the ten that died I think a couple went more than 70 days before they died.

Quote:

---

I don't really know much about this man except what I have read here but I do what to say that 44 days without food isn't that exceptional.

---

Another example: As far back as 1929, Jatin Das, an Indian revolutionary, went on hunger-strike to protest the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev (who were his fellow revolutionaries, given the death sentence in the Lahore Conspiracy case). This fast ultimately culminated in his death, on the 64th day.

My teacher tells me that he even swallowed chillies (chilli peppers) so that his oesophagus would sort of "crunch-up", to thus foil the British authorities' efforts to force-feed him milk.

As far as I know, human beings that go on hunger strikes tend to be those who have never known hunger.

Sometimes, the stars say something. Sometimes, they don't. Sometimes, David believes what he's trying to listen to. And sometimes, he's off a little. Sitting in a box is a surrender. Starvation is not a protest. Heads forward, hands in pockets, people seem to say what they mean. David is fibbing, and thats a horrible thing to do. I guess that it could be worse.

Has anyone ever slept on the street?

Without a box , I mean. Plexiglass. Cardboard. I am again confused. Time to add Graemlins!

I'll give David Blaine no more credit (or lack of it) than I do giving Sylvia Browne credit for noticing that ghost swirling around my head.... This stuff is fun to absorb but I don't think it has any grand impact.