A child sits quietly, eyes covered by a cloth. Someone places a coloured block in front of her. After a brief pause, she names the colour. For some, this scene sparks fascination; for others, scepticism. Science invites a third response: a spirit of inquiry. What is actually happening here? That question, rooted in neither belief nor disbelief, is where scientific investigation begins. Today the Intuition Process, or Prajñā Yoga, offered by the Art of Living Foundation, stands at just such a threshold.

The programme itself is a tapestry of breathing, meditation, relaxation, movement, and structured cognitive exercises designed for children. Its most eye-catching demonstrations feature children performing tasks while blindfolded – a spectacle that delights and invites scepticism in equal measure. But if we focus solely on the blindfold, we might overlook a more intriguing question: not whether children can "see" without their eyes, but whether systematic contemplative practice can influence the developing brain in ways that science is only beginning to explore.

Three questions, three levels of evidence

Public conversation about the programme tends to swing between two extremes: accept every extraordinary claim, or dismiss the programme entirely. Science asks us instead to separate the questions and weigh each by the strength of its evidence.

The first question is perhaps the most familiar: can contemplative practices influence cognition and emotional well-being? Here, the evidence is relatively robust. Randomised controlled trials of breath-based programmes, such as Sudarshan Kriya Yoga, have reported improvements in attention, planning, and emotion regulation, along with reduced stress, among adolescents and young adults. These findings align well with current understanding in neuroscience and educational psychology.

The second question asks whether the Intuition Process itself produces measurable cognitive changes beyond those already known. Studies of adolescents with visual impairment and, more recently, children with congenital hearing impairment have reported gains in memory, recall, attention, and well-being. These results are promising but preliminary. Both studies were intramural, one single-arm and the other quasi-experimental – typical designs for the early stages of exploring a new intervention. Their main contribution may lie in showing what can be measured and which questions merit further investigation. The logical next step is for independent research groups to replicate them.

The third question is perhaps the most challenging: can children perform perceptual tasks without ordinary vision? Here, the bar for evidence rises sharply. In other contexts, blindfolds that let in a sliver of light near the nose have sometimes explained similar claims. Any robust test would need verified light-proof blindfolds, pre-registered protocols, and assessors who are unaware of the expected outcomes. If the effect held up under these conditions, it would prompt us to revisit aspects of how perception works. If it did not, that result would be just as valuable, bringing clarity where there was uncertainty.

Asking a better question

The study of visually impaired adolescents illustrates why we should not conflate these questions. It does not provide evidence for extrasensory perception, nor should anyone read it that way. Its contribution is more nuanced. For these adolescents – many of them visually impaired since birth – researchers measured memory with a test given entirely by ear, so the blindfold debate is beside the point; the questions become ones of plasticity. How does the brain adapt when a sensory pathway is absent? Can contemplative practice influence attention, memory, or sensory integration in ways that support learning? These questions fit comfortably within modern neuroscience and deserve investigation in their own right.

History reminds us that scientific understanding is always evolving. Scientists once dismissed continental drift and stones falling from the sky; both proved real. Conversely, many scientists reported observing N-rays until a careful experiment showed they did not exist. Not every anomaly leads to a paradigm shift; most do not. Yet genuine progress comes from letting nature, rather than our expectations, decide the outcome.

This is why scepticism and curiosity work best as collaborators rather than opposites. Curiosity sets the inquiry in motion; scepticism ensures that any answers are well earned. Without curiosity, science risks stagnation. Without scepticism, it risks credulity.

Curiosity sets the inquiry in motion; scepticism ensures that any answers are well earned.

A shared endeavour

The next chapter of research on the Intuition Process belongs to the broader scientific community: developmental psychologists, neuroscientists, vision and hearing specialists, and educational researchers. Independent laboratories, with no vested interest in the outcome, are especially well positioned to contribute. Some studies may confirm current observations, others may point to more conventional explanations, and still others may uncover mechanisms no one has yet considered.

The Intuition Process does not require science to lower its standards, but rather to apply them with rigour, transparency, and humility. Only careful research will reveal its true role – as an effective educational tool, a model for studying cognitive development, or a catalyst for new lines of scientific inquiry. The history of science is, in many respects, a chronicle of discovering that the world is more surprising than we expected. The developing mind may well be another chapter in that ongoing story. If so, perhaps the lesson is not that ancient traditions contained all the answers, but that they continue to offer questions worth exploring.