Recently I've seen this floating around on social media...
So it says a "scientifically controlled study". Well let's look at that shall we? Here is a link to the "study" https://journals.sfu.ca/seemj/index.php/seemj/article/viewFile/56/44
One of the first things that is apparent is this involves only one participant. That is hardly anything credible or noteworthy. This is clearly not scientific by any definition.
After a day of erratic reading, the meditator and the experimenter went to the experimenter's house for dinner and possibly (it's not clear from the test) slept over. So there is a pretty big potential bias here. Again, this is clearly not scientific.
An odd thing that makes no sense to me is that it says on the first day the meditator was nude "to eliminate florescence from fabrics and to prevent static electric discharges." But there were black blankets in the dark room to keep the meditator wrapped up in and warm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't blankets made of fabric? lol. I think that eliminates the "study" as scientifically controlled.
On the second day, the "study" says that he had a watch on (so not nude) that had a florescent dial. They claim it was covered during the experiment, but there was no need for him to have it on. Again, it eliminates the study as scientifically controlled.
In conclusion, this study is absolutely hogwash and laughable.