The article you referenced above is not from a reliable source. Psych Central sometimes publishes articles that are antipsychiatry in nature. This is an example of one of them. The research mentioned in the paper is questionable due to the origins of the article. Note that the study was not published in one of the major peer reviewed publlications…
Here we see this oft repeated ritual. I’ve seen it with Mars (Cydonia), Psi research, Ancient Civilisations (Atlantis) or anything that actually has a lot of meaning and evidence associated with it.
In fact this response appears to be a defence to protect a place that is extremely cloistered, reduced, cold, a vacuum, concretised. Static. Shut off. Restricted. Keep out zone. No go area. Unheard of. Not shown on maps. Not listed in any directories.
I could go on … but the truth of the matter appears to be this. What exactly is in that place that they are defending ?
In fact there appears to be nothing. They are defending a perfect vacuum. This is why that place defies analysis … because there is nothing there to analyse ! Notice how the argument comes down to “does not appear in the major peer reviewed journals” .. this is bogus as Science and the dialog of society in general – even in Psychiatry it’self, or Planetary Science, or Psi research, does not depend on the say so of an anonymous elite of journal editors. Their contributions are well respected as they often have a wide experience of vetting papers and research. However that does not mean that anything outside that world is wrong, and I suspect the editors of those journals would probably agree with this analysis themselves … because, how do contributions get to those journals in the first place ? The work of those journals does not exist in isolation and is based on a wide spectrum of valid work going on outside of them. In fact they are more like a particular kind of forum that has it’s place, but that role should never be used to shower scorn on highly valuable work such as is mentioned in this quote.