There are certain diffculties we're having, when we discuss things like aura, telepathy, extra sensoric perception, and other similar topics. These topics might seem irrational, and yet we discuss them. This is, because it's natural to be curious about them. But soon, we realize, that such topics are not only out of most of people's everyday experience, but also out of our abilities to discuss them rationally. Why, is demonstrated below. I want to propose a method how to discuss them meaningfully, avoid conflicts, and allow us to come to a conclusions.

For now, it is like...
I make an assertion. I by myself I'm not able to prove that assertion (which is nobody's fault) so I must refer to someone else, who did some more work on this. Soon I realize, that people about whom that reference is, are dead, or ridiculed, persecuted, accused. on the run, or locked up in jail, so this makes them not very trustworthy. Well, how to get out of that dead end? The reason for that original assertion is still true. But the only way how to prove it to someone is actually make other people prove it by themselves to themselves, to do the work. This wouldn't be such a great problem, but somehow, people has a habit to consider an unproven, or unsuccesfully proven assertion as false. A reasonable reaction would be
a) weak agnosticism towards the subject
b) curiosity about the subject
which would help them to make some effort and find their proof, but somehow, a negative reaction is happening instead. I believe this is because there are concepts of "foolishness" and "lunacy", to mask a fear from people who seemingly behaves  and thinks differently. So fear might be behind this all, fear from losing your time on bullshit (though people loses it all the time on their bullshit), or fear of alienation from peers, just for not refusing the bullshitters immediately.
I've got to emphasize, it is normal to disagree with someone about something, but it's not normal to let an emotions, like fear, come into this. You can't disagree about something by the words like "lunacy", because it means nothing, it means your own emotional, fearful reaction. Furthermore, many people here are less or more freshly after getting free from religious mental abuse, and they're very antagonistic against anything what distantly resembles any kind of bullshittery. Putting aside that in USA the religion is a real threat, this antagonism is another obstacle from being emotionally detached about such topics. 
This is why are rules for discussion, and just as there are rules of etiquette for discussion and examination of evidence, so there should be another.
1) Anyone, who participates in a discussion on such an esoteric and metaphysic topics, should either:
Be obliged to test the claims honestly and thoroughly by him/herself, (at least once) resulting in positive, undecided or negative stance,
OR
Have a stance of weak agnosticism about the subject.
2) It is acceptable to share own experiences, however, it's inacceptable to demand a belief in them, from others.
This must be, because there can't or doesn't yet exist any other reliable authority on these topics than the authority of self. It is the terra incognita, a place where the scientific standards and certainities are as distant, as electrification in Amazon jungle. These standards must be painstakingly built over decades, this is why every serious participant should make an actual, personal contribution to these not yet existing standards. Don't ask for proof unless it's already offered, because it's your problem that you don't have one and only you can give it to yourself, by your effort. Accepting anyone else's judgement here is irrational. It's a jungle, you're on your own. Use your curiosity, your longing for the truth, as your power.

It is inevitable, that there will be a number of people, who will have a negative stance towards the subject, even though they make a honest inquisitive effort. But I believe, that their number will be much less than of those, who has a negative stance now. In this moment, a "skeptic" is a person dependent on an infrastructure of scientific paradigm, and lacks it, when he/she comes to an area, where it's not yet built, and adopts a negative stance just because of that unfortunate, but unjust reason. Unjust, but understandable, because we live all our lives within a scientific realm, which allows a beautifully fast work and progress, and we don't realize, that this is an artificial construct built by human hands, not an omnipresent standard. What I want, is an independent researcher, not a whiny proof demander. There are areas of knowledge and the world, where we must do the scientific work by ourselves. Did you know, that it takes about 200 years in a geographic area, before a heavy industry is developed there? Similar it is with scientific standards, it needs a great preparatory work, until either a metaphysics of today becomes a science of tomorrow, or metaphysicists themselves will see an error of their ways. This is what we can expect with an arrival of scientific standards into this area.

So, laides and gentlemen, guys and girls, this codex needs to have a real guts to accept it out of the blue. I accepted it, because I already do such an effort anyway, but for others, it may take many years, it may cost you your skeptic friends, and it needs you to have a real interest in this area, not just an ocassional talk on this forum. So what do you think, what will you do? Do you understand the thought behind this theory, it's meaning, and so on? Any improvements you've got on your mind?