hmm. I just read this more carefully. First of all, the breatharian definition he gives
sounds like the California definition of "breatharian": new, improved, and packed with free will! It's like saying: "my breatharianism embraces twinkies!"
*edit: any "ism" begins to self-destruct.
Contrast this with someone like Giri Bala (see Autobiography of a yogi)...
then, there's this very important piece of the diet challenge...
"every day, *if you want to eat*, eat only...."
if you want to eat.
well, I wouldn't, if these were my choices. Not after one day...so, good.
Now, I'd have conquered the need for food! Is that the point?
So, it would seem that while many would say "hey, that's my kind of diet!" they would not likely be candidates for breatharianism. After all, they genuinely love this food! They're probably addicted to its various (dare I say 'wiley')chemical synergies.
(What about vegan raw foodists? Can anyone imagine this being a good diet for someone living that way? Even as an experiment, it seems foolhardy.)
and the ones who might want to try the challenge, who *might* be interested in the idea of breatharianism, might just find themselves that much closer to imagining living without food! ( but likely more through distaste, it would seem)
I haven't figured out how the feeling fantastic fits into the puzzle. Caffeine? Sugar? Fat? And I'd be reluctant to support someone's trying this.