Altered states of consciousness induced by breathwork accompanied by music

I feel like I can barely relate to those people, and understanding what they're saying is nigh impossible. The definitions of most things are really vague - even the article of this thread only defines breathwork as "cyclic breathing without pausing, accompanied by progressively evocative music". So... faster breathing while intensifying music is playing?

One issue for me is how anything connected to these topics seems to attract a healthy mix of rational observation, psychedelic users and religious people (old and new). Deciphering which is which is really difficult without already having a foot in the door on this topic.

To pick a random example in two directions:

1. "The thoughts, ideas and feelings experienced by a human mind consist of patterns of neurons firing": you'll read this often on HN from people who think of themselves as rational, and it is usually stated in relation to the idea that those thoughts, ideas and feelings can also be experienced by a suitable computer program. This isn't remotely rigorous, though. There are certainly arguments that can be made in favour of it, but there are also arguments against and the whole debate properly belongs to philosophy at this stage, not science, as the questions involved aren't even properly formulated let alone experimentally validated. What science actually tells us is that neurons fire, that there are observable relationships between neuron firing and external stimuli and motor action and that the firing of particular neurons affects the firing of other neurons. Science gives us detailed mechanisms for some of these relationships, and ways of influencing them. This is a vast body of knowledge, but nowhere does it contain the conclusion that "the thoughts, ideas and feelings experienced by a human mind consist of patterns of neurons firing". Perhaps some day it will, once the question of "neural coding" is solved (along with many other such questions) and we've experimentally verified that reproducing a firing pattern alone is sufficient to replicate a subjective experience. Until then the statement isn't science, to the extent that it isn't even formulated in a way that can be supported or opposed by science. It just feels sciencey to some people and that's enough for them.

2. "Meditation can alter the subjective perception of time": This might sound more "woo" than the above, but it's a lot less so. It can quite easily be stated in way that can be quantified and experimentally validated/falsified, and there are studies that have explored it (I have no views on the quality of them). The outcome is not even surprising - time seems to pass more slowly when you sit still and breathe deeply, what a shock!