love, ariana

what science currently says: shifting vs. similar phenomena

while shifting itself hasn’t been studied in depth (yet), we do have research on similar states of consciousness—lucid dreaming, hypnosis, and even maladaptive daydreaming (to an extent). so, what does science say about these?

1. lucid dreaming: once called “impossible,” now neurologically proven

not too long ago, lucid dreaming was considered pseudoscience. the idea that someone could be conscious while dreaming sounded absurd—until researchers found a way to prove it.

scientists like stephen laberge used fMRI scans and eye movement signals from sleeping participants to confirm that lucid dreamers were indeed aware and controlling their dreams. we now know that lucid dreaming involves a unique interplay between the prefrontal cortex (responsible for self-awareness and decision-making) and the REM sleep stage.

before this research? lucid dreamers were written off as liars, delusional, or mistaking their dreams for something they weren’t. sound familiar?

2. hypnosis: once dismissed, now widely used in medicine

hypnosis was once labeled as stage magic and a party trick. today, it’s an accepted psychological phenomenon used in therapy, pain management, and even surgery (yes, surgery—some patients have undergone operations using only hypnosis as anesthesia).

neuroscientific studies show that hypnosis alters brain activity, shifting people into a highly focused state where the brain processes suggestions as reality. if science could accept that the mind can be influenced to perceive reality differently, why is shifting such a stretch?

3. maladaptive daydreaming: a new but recognized condition

maladaptive daydreaming wasn’t officially named until 2002, when professor eli somer identified it as a distinct phenomenon. before then, people struggling with excessive, immersive daydreaming were misdiagnosed with ADHD, OCD, or dissociative disorders.

now, we have concrete research proving that MD is neurologically distinct from normal imagination, linked to overactivity in the default mode network (DMN)—the brain’s self-referential system.

again, before science caught up, these people were called lazy, unfocused, or simply too imaginative. now? it’s a legitimate condition with ongoing research.

what can we take away from that? well, this formula, probably:

history repeats itself: the cycle of disbelief → proof → acceptance

science has a history of mocking what it doesn’t yet understand. let’s not forget that:

• germ theory was laughed at—until microscopes proved bacteria existed.

• deep-sea creatures? dismissed as sailor myths—until we developed better submersibles.

• lucid dreaming, hypnosis, and MD—all called “fake”, until research proved otherwise.

what does this tell us? if shifting is real, the fact that it hasn’t been proven yet doesn’t mean it won’t be. it just means science hasn’t caught up.

but, i like being thorough & unbiased, so i’ll list a few reasons i think or don’t think it’ll be proven!

reasons shifting might be proven

1. brain scans might reveal shifting-specific activity.

• fMRI studies could eventually show unique neurological patterns in shifting states, differentiating it from dreaming or imagination.

2. science is moving towards studying altered consciousness.

• lucid dreaming, astral projection, and out-of-body experiences are getting more attention in neuroscience. shifting could be next.

3. quantum theories suggest consciousness may not be confined to the brain.

• theories like the many-worlds interpretation propose infinite parallel realities—if true, shifting might be tapping into that.

4. hypnosis proves perception can be altered at a deep level.

• shifting might be a self-induced state where the brain accepts a different reality as real.

5. historical precedent shows that dismissed phenomena often get validated later.

reasons shifting might never be proven

1. there’s no scientific method to test it yet.

• unlike lucid dreaming (where we can confirm awareness inside dreams), there’s no current way to measure or prove someone is in a DR.

2. it relies on subjective experience.

• shifting is deeply personal—there’s no external way to prove someone’s consciousness is in another reality.

3. science still struggles to define consciousness itself.

• if we don’t fully understand what consciousness is, proving it can move between realities is even harder.

4. there’s no physical evidence of DRs existing.

• unless we discover parallel realities and a way to interact with them, shifting might remain in the realm of belief rather than science.

5. mainstream science is slow to accept unconventional ideas.

• even if shifting is real, it could take decades—or even centuries—for science to acknowledge it.

my verdict: will shifting ever be proven?

it depends on what shifting actually is.

• if shifting is a genuine form of multiversal travel, it might take quantum physics advancing far beyond what we currently know to validate it.

• if shifting is a unique altered state of consciousness, neuroscience might eventually find evidence through brain imaging studies.

• if shifting is something else entirely—something we don’t even have a framework for yet—it might never be proven in our lifetime.

but history has shown that just because science hasn’t proven something yet doesn’t mean it won’t. skepticism is often just delayed understanding.

so, will shifting be scientifically proven? not tomorrow, not next year—but if history has taught us anything, it’s that the impossible has a habit of becoming reality.