Note: The following letters are reprinted with
On the Forbidden Letters by Hugo Palts
Dear vistors of World Mysteries,
Ladies and gentlemen,
On May 3, 2006 I read an article on the Forbidden Letters in a newspaper.
I studied both the letters and the information in part 2, as well as the
Stockholm-article by Magnus Strom, with great interest, since I've been reading
on alchemy for several years.
And I am of the opinion by now that the letters contain the actual key to the
But many questions of course remain. Two of those questions I would like to
Question number one:
Is there, in respect to the so called lightbody, any scientific knowledge on
a possible infrastructure for light in the natural human body?
And question number two:
By what process or force is the Work of the Sun actually performed? Could
cold-fusion for instance be involved in the process of fusing the two opposites
Both questions probably remain unanswered as long as we cannot examine a
completed and 'outed' lightbody. But we can speculate, and this is the age of
Google and Wikipedia of course.
So what is it then Wikipedia gives on light in cells?
Here is a selection of what it has on biophotons:
"A biophoton is a photon of light emitted in some fashion from a biological
system. From a scientific point of view, there is no difference between such a
photon and a photon emitted by any other physical process. One might then argue
that it is more correct to attach the attribute biological to the
emission process, as in bioluminescence, because no specific biologicalness can
be attributed to the photons themselves, once they are emitted. However, the
term "bioluminescence" is generally reserved for higher intensity
luciferin/luciferase systems, while "biophoton emission" refers to the
general phenomena of low-intensity photon emission from living systems.
It is universally accepted that biological systems emit photons. The term "biophoton",
however, has come to be associated in particular with photons emitted by certain
processes that are not yet well understood. Loose terminology has caused some
confusion as to what is actually known about the
phenomena of emission of photons from biological systems. There are several
associated definitions of the term biophoton, some of which are unscientific,
and some of which generate confusion among those who are not scientists."
"In the 1920s, the Russian embryologist Alexander Gurwitsch reported "ultraweak"
photon emissions from living tissues in the UV-range of the spectrum. He named
them "mitogenetic rays", because he assumed that they had a
stimulating effect on cell division rates of nearby tissue.
However, common biochemical techniques as well as the fact that cell growth can
generally be stimulated and directed by radiation, though at much higher
amplitudes, evoked a general skepticism about Gurwitsch´s assumption.
Consequently, the mitogenetic radiation hypothesis was largely ignored. However,
after the end of World War II some Western scientists such as Colli (Italy),
Quickenden (Australia), Inaba (Japan) returned to the subject of "mitogenetic
radiation", but referred to the phenomenon as "dark
luminescence", "low level luminescence", "ultraweak
"ultraweak chemiluminescence". Their common basic hypothesis was that
the phenomenon was induced from rare oxidation processes and radical reactions.
While they added some general chemistry to the hypothesis of photon emission,
they did not address the more mysterious assumption of Gurwitsch that the
photons themselves, forming the so-called mitogenic rays, stimulated cellular
In the 1970s the then assistant professor Fritz-Albert Popp, and his research
group, at the University of Marburg (Germany) offered a slightly more detailed
analysis of the topic. They showed that the spectral distribution of the
emission fell over a wide range of wavelengths, from 200 to 800 nm. Popp further
proposed the surprising and unprecedented hypothesis that the radiation might be
both semi-periodic and coherent in the quantum mechanical sense.
This hypothesis is still regarded as an outsider hypothesis in the scientific
"In statistical mechanics and modern biology, the favored model of many
systems has to do with ensemble phenomena due to a large number of interacting
molecules, etc. In chaos theory, for example, it is often suggested that the
appearance of randomness in systems is due to a lack of
understanding of the larger scheme under which the system responds.
Regardless, this has led many who deal with large systems to employ statistics
to explain seemingly random events as outlying effects in probability
distributions. In this way, since there is normal and openly visible
bioluminescence in both many bacteria and other cells (see bioluminescence
article) which emit light by particular chemical reactions due to proteins, then
it can be inferred that due to the extremely small number of photons in
ultra-weak bioluminescence (the numbers given above
correspond to roughly a single photon per cell per month, assuming a typical
cell diameter of 10 micrometers) that these emissions are simply a random
by-product of cellular metabolism, in much the same way that solar flares on
some coarse level are thought of as simply random byproducts of nuclear fusion
on the surface of stars.
Slightly more specifically, cellular metabolism is thought to occur in a chain
of steps (which leads to dynamic cycles) in which each step involves small
energy exchanges (See ATP). Thus, due to a certain degree of randomness
according to the laws of thermodynamics (or statistical mechanics), it must then
be expected that, very rarely, some irregular steps can occur. These are
referred to as "outlying states." Thus due to occasional
physiochemical energy imbalance, a photon is occasionally
According to this model there is no need to adopt a mysterious hypothesis, like
the mitogenetic radiation hypothesis. But, of course, it cannot exclude
"In the absence of definite knowledge about the mechanisms that produce
these photons, some of the groups around F.A. Popp in Neuss/Germany, who adopted
the term "biophotons", have speculated that they may be involved in
various cell functions, such as mitosis, or even that they may be produced
and detected by the DNA in the cell nucleus. These speculations have not yet
resulted in a testable hypothesis.
Some groups have further speculated that these emissions may be part of a system
of cell-to-cell communication, which may be of greater complexity than the modes
of cell communication already known, such as chemical signaling. These ideas
even suggest that biophotons may be important for the
development of larger structures, such as organs and organisms.
Studies have shown that injured cells will let off a higher photon rate than
normal cells, and organisms with illnesses will likewise emit a brighter light,
implying a sort of distress signal being given off.  It's possible that this
minor form of communication first became common as single-cell organisms began
to cooperate to form complex organisms, using biophotons as a less effective
And here is, a selection again, of what Wikipedia has on cold fusion:
"Cold fusion is a nuclear fusion reaction that takes place at or near room
temperature and normal pressure instead of the millions of degrees and thousands
of pounds of force required for plasma fusion reactions. The popular press
sometimes use the term "cold fusion" incorrectly, to describe
plasma fusion that occurs in table-top apparatus such as pyroelectric fusion.
Cold fusion has two major lines of research: muon-catalyzed fusion and condensed
matter nuclear science (CMNS, previously called "low energy nuclear
reactions"). "Cold fusion" is often used to refer to the latter.
The former is not controversial but it consumes more energy than it generates.
It is not presented further in this article. Cold fusion of the latter type was
initially reported by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of
Utah in March of 1989. Because it was presented as a new practical source of
energy, this announcement was front-page news for some time, and generated a
strong controversy, but the debate abated quickly and CMNS was rejected by the
mainstream scientific community. CMNS researchers say that they have
been shunned by the scientific establishment. They publish papers in peer
reviewed scientific journals specializing in related fields, but none have
published in major scientific journals such as Nature or Science after the
The latest mainstream review of research in CMNS occurred in 2004 when the US
Department of Energy set up a panel of eighteen scientists. The panelists were
evenly split on the following issue: "Is there compelling evidence for
power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid state
sources". Two thirds of the panel did not feel that there was any
conclusive evidence for low energy nuclear reactions, five found the evidence
"somewhat convincing" and one was entirely convinced. The nearly
unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain
well-designed proposal for experiments in this field."
"Cold fusion's most significant problem in the eyes of many scientists is
that theories describing nuclear fusion can not explain how a cold fusion
reaction could occur at relatively low temperatures, and that there is currently
no accepted theory to explain cold fusion. In order for fusion to occur,
the electrostatic force (Coulomb repulsion) between the positively charged
nuclei must be overcome. Once the distance between the nuclei becomes comparable
to one femtometre, the attractive strong interaction takes over and the fusion
may occur. However, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between the nuclei
separated by several femtometres is greater than interactions between nuclei and
electrons by approximately six orders of magnitude. Overcoming that requires an
energy on the order of 10 MeV per nucleus, whereas the energies of chemical
reactions are on the order of several electron-volts; it is hard to explain
where the required energy would come from in room-temperature matter.
Huizenga, who was the head of the DoE ERAB panel that dismissed cold fusion in
1989, concluded: "If the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by
other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude
that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat." Nobel laureate
Schwinger believes that "If a proven track record can be established... you
have to believe it". He also believes that cold fusion does not violate
conventional theory. As he puts it, "The defense [of cold fusion] is simply
stated: The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of
hot fusion". Cold fusion researchers have proposed several theoretical
explain the effect (see low energy nuclear reaction), but none has been
confirmed by experiment."
With my warmest wishes,