The home page of Dr Jack Kruse, who claims to be a neurosurgeon and "optimal health educator" contains the following paragraph:

There is a deep connection between thermodynamics in biology and the processing of energy and information. This process begins in the skin and this biophysical process will be explored and examined. In 2016 Jack came to Nourish Vermont and explained how food can only be understood via photosynthesis. Last year he showed us obesity begins in the eye and not with foods of exercise. All of these things tie light, water, and magnetism the computations that mitochondria must make. What stands between the sun and our mitochondria? The skin. Do nature and biology add lipid droplets to our skin to create a laser that changes sunlight into coherent light that activates programs in our subcutaneous fat? Learn how the skin works with the sun and mitochondria in a wireless fashion to build wellness within.

He seems to be part of a network of alternative health gurus who promote radical alternative therapies (including the idea that reducing the bodily load of deuterium cures many modern illnesses as in this question).

Little of that paragraph makes any sense according to the science I know (and he wants $99 for the detail). But the highlighted sentence seems clear enough for a skeptical analysis.

So, to repeat the full claim: Do nature and biology add lipid droplets to our skin to create a laser that changes sunlight into coherent light that activates programs in our subcutaneous fat?

And is anything else he says meaningful enough to deserve analysis?

  • 4
    This seems a lot like meaningless woo. What kind of evidence would you accept?skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4266/… Dec 16, 2018 at 23:39
  • 5
    I'm not seeing any credible claim here -- just a bunch of BS. Dec 17, 2018 at 0:05
  • 3
    @matt_black - I'm not seeing any explanation of how a "laser" could be formed, or of what the "programs" are that are "activated". Certainly sunlight interacts with the skin in several ways, but the above is just BS. Dec 17, 2018 at 0:59
  • 3
    I suppose my strategy here is to leap onto the claims made in pseudoscientific site that (perhaps accidentally) come closest to real scientific claims and refute them thereby avoiding the need to make sense of the rest of the woo.
    – matt_black
    Dec 17, 2018 at 1:04
  • 6
    "Dr." Kruse has framed the most tenuous claim as a question... I bet he thinks he's cleverly avoiding the accusation that he's claiming "skin lasers." Please don't pay him $99. Dec 17, 2018 at 15:12

1 Answer 1


If we discard the "activates programs" part of the claim as unclear that leaves the claim that lipid droplets in the skin create coherent light when stimulated by the sun.

A laser requires the following components to work:

1: A lasing medium which is optically transparent apart from atoms of some element that will emit light at the desired wavelength. The claim doesn't tell us what wavelength this is, but lipids are hydrocarbons, so unless there is some other atom within these lipids then we are restricted to hydrogen, carbon and oxygen.

2: A "population inversion" in the atoms of the lasing element. Its not just enough to shine a light on the medium; you have to get more than 50% of the atoms or molecules (depending on the medium used) into an "excited state" by getting them to absorb a photon. These photons are then re-emitted in step to produce the laser light. If you don't get 50% excited then more light will be absorbed than is emitted, and lasing won't happen.

3: An "optical cavity", meaning in practice a mirror at either end. Without it you have something that can amplify existing laser light, but won't lase on its own.

The following things suggest that this is unlikely to be happening in liposomes:

  • A Google search hasn't turned up anthing suggesting that liposomes form an optical cavity. Everything with the relevant keywords was about using laser beams to do things to lipids and liposomes.

  • Likewise I couldn't find any suggestion that lipids can be persuaded to lase.

  • Getting a population inversion generally takes a lot of energy concentrated on the lasing medium. Ordinary sunlight isn't intense enough to do this.

None of this is irrefutable evidence that the claim is wrong, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I would have to say that I don't believe a word of it.

  • 1
    I did (after 5 minutes of Googling) find one reference claiming (with photo) that lipids artificially embedded in the skin (pig skin was shown) could be made to "laze" when activated with light via fiber optics. The claim was that the lipid blobs were forming an optical cavity. But no suggestion that similar effects could be obtained with sunlight. Dec 19, 2018 at 13:41
  • 2
    @DanielRHicks If you give me a URL I'll add a reference. Dec 19, 2018 at 15:26
  • I didn't hang onto it. I found it by Googling something like "lipids laser" and working past the first several pages about liposuction or whatever it was. Dec 19, 2018 at 17:41
  • @DanielRHicks - Is this the post?
    – Melioratus
    Jan 19, 2021 at 20:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .