"Exiled Brain Surgeon" Podcast/Interview

Are any Satanists already familiar with Jack Kruse? Do you take as much precaution as he does against blue light and non native emf?
Are we severely disadvantaged to achieving our Magnum Opus in this life due to environmental factors?
 
LED lights that appear to give off white light are still giving off blue light. The sun also gives off blue light.

Blue light has a higher frequency that affects the body in different ways than red or orange light. It wouldn't be harmful at all if the only source we had was the sun. But since it's everywhere it has become a health hazard.

One effect of blue light is that it destroys melatonin in your eyes. That's why turning on a light at night will wake you up if you were tired.

I use blue light filter on my pc and it regulates the light temperature to 1500 - 1900 Kelvin. Is that worth something?
 
Well, I was curious about sunspots, because Jack Kruse recommends getting lots of sun exposure.

(He says you should build up your sun callous with full body sun exposure before 10:00 am, so the infrared waves condition your skin before there's any UV)

Anyways, I asked AI, and I think reading this answer actually gives the briefest overview of what you can expect that 4 hour podcast to cover.

Yeah, Kruse does touch on skin pigmentation and spots, though it's woven into his broader framework about light environments rather than a focused "sun spots 101" breakdown. Here's the gist of what he argues:

His core take on why spots/hyperpigmentation form:

Kruse's angle is basically the opposite of conventional dermatology. He argues that uneven pigmentation (age spots, melasma, solar lentigines) isn't primarily caused by natural sun exposure — it's caused by a dysregulated melanin system driven by artificial blue light (indoor LEDs, screens, fluorescent lighting).

He points out that modern indoor lighting strips out UV and IR light, leaving an excess of blue light, and argues this is actually what drives abnormal skin pigmentation patterns rather than full-spectrum sun exposure. He also notes that red light has been shown to lower the risk of melanogenesis (excess pigment production), but red light has been removed from most modern artificial lighting, which increases the blue light hazard to the skin. Jack KruseJack Kruse

What he says about melanin itself:

UV radiation stimulates DNA damage signals in keratinocytes at the skin surface, which activates the p53 gene and upregulates POMC (proopiomelanocortin) — the precursor that drives melanin production. He frames melanin as a protective molecule, not a liability. Google Groups

His prevention advice (implied):

  • Get real, full-spectrum sunlight rather than avoiding it
  • Ditch or minimize artificial blue light indoors (the actual culprit in his model)
  • Don't wear sunscreen/sunglasses, which he says block the very signals your skin needs to calibrate melanin properly
  • He considers sunscreen and sunglasses to contribute to atrophic skin (thin, low-melanin skin) and argues they block the melanin induction pathways you need Video Highlight

Honest caveat:

Kruse's framing is provocative and not mainstream dermatology. The science on blue light contributing to hyperpigmentation is real and emerging, but mainstream consensus still holds that UVA/UVB from the sun are the primary drivers of solar lentigines and age spots. His inversion of the narrative — "the sun isn't the problem, your office lighting is" — is his signature move and worth taking with some skepticism, even if there's a kernel of something to the blue light angle.

If you want to go deeper on his specific take, his blog post "Reality #3" is probably the most detailed he gets on skin pigmentation mechanics.
 
I use blue light filter on my pc and it regulates the light temperature to 1500 - 1900 Kelvin. Is that worth something?

I don't really know a lot about the topic, to be honest. Later in that vid you can see Kruse's phone screen for a moment and it's totally red/orange.

I feel like he takes things pretty far, maybe farther than needs be? It's weird for me to say that as a layman, when he's the expert supposedly, but I do get that impression.
 
These AI chatbots are so heavily curated to shut down any science or historical fact that contradicts the matrix... I wouldn't bother asking it anything.
Yeah. I am suspicious of what the intentions of those behind the chatbots are. On ChatGPT it gives a disclaimer that it makes mistakes. I share these for information-gathering and to compare with other places, e.g. j/news wedsites/TV programmes and users' comments in comment sections (and also to show how the chatbot replies).
 
Back
Top