Look, I'm not trying to discount your experience as real. I am suggesting that trying things like breathwork without someone there to explain step-by-step and guide your progress makes one - anyone - more prone to errors. Those errors can lead to problems. I mentioned going breathwork with retention, which is holding one's breath. If you hold for too long, too many times, you can end up with tinnitus. Which I did, because I was also doing it wrong. It's a common beginner's error, and once corrected, it stopped being a problem for me.
Wikipedia has a known set of ideological bias, and because you're looking at the (New Age) article, the bias of "everything in here is stupid pseudoscience BS, so light it up" is easily met. I can't find the interview I saw a few years ago, because now everything is buried in some "is it wOkEipedia???" garbage slurry, but an editor says something like "Yes, I'm biased. Wikipedia should show my biases because I'm always right." Which is....just such an egotistical human thing to say. Anyway, point is that if you're looking at any Wikipedia page that can be dismissed as "woo-woo" then it's automatically becomes fairly anti-that thing page.
Which I think you recognize. You're doubtful about the relevance of a 1993 study already. And if you follow that to the citation, it's a book named "Hypocrisy and Dissent Within the Findhorn Foundation: Towards a Sociology of a New Age Community" that seems like a hit piece on a singular foundation. Which, just a guess here, means someone in Scotland was teaching holotropic breathwork wrong, and ran into some problems, and it was assumed that holotropic breathing, and not the failures of one group, were to blame. Here we are over 30 years later, and you have as many citations supporting holotropic breathing as "dangerous" as there are that say vaccines cause autism, and potentially about the same quality of study. Which isn't to say that more research isn't needed, sure. However, I would suggest that if over 30+ years where increased research into breathwork has taken place hasn't pointed to holotropic breathwork specifically as uniquely dangerous as compared to any other kind of breathwork, then maybe don't single out one narrow practice based on one experience you had while 99.999% of other people seem to be getting along just fine.
Speaking of which, you'll notice that Michael Pollin says that it's CO2 levels in the blood, not holotropic breathwork specifically, that led to his AFib. Many kinds of breathwork change the CO2 levels in the blood. Pranayama does that. And so does Ketoacidosis - the keto diet, along with medical issues like kidney disorders that acidify the blood. So maybe projecting is the wrong term. Bias-seeking would be more accurate. Any number of things that produced low CO2 levels were going to have the same effect, and so had his experiment been about the keto diet, he would have had the same results. He had something weird happen as a side effect which was negative, so it met your bias. Which is normal and human, but please see that for what it is. You didn't even have the same negative effects as Pollin, so it seems to me like the word "holotropic" is all that connects the experiences, yes? Did you do the practice right or not? I don't know. Only you can know. But if you're running into negative experiences based not on an established medical condition, then I ask what was the difference between what you did and the people that have a lovely time?
And you can't really call a guy that wrote This if Your Mind on Plants and takes mescaline and goes off caffeine as not willing to try anything. It's been a few years since I read the book, but I seem to recall he seemed like he was willing to grow opium poppies in his yard if it wasn't for the simple fact that doing so, and writing about it, would have easily incriminated him in print and made the whole section of the book unpublishable.
Call it whatever you want, but if you're trying to approach this from an evidence-based, scientific perspective, first off, you should say just "some breathwork has potential dangers." Because it does. If you jump in a pool and to pranayama and breath retention and pass out, you can drown. Which was in Scott Carney's book about Wim Hof. Not ideal, right? Yet, not holotropic, either. Second, eating a sandwich can lead to choking and death. Eating shellfish can lead to negative reactions and death. Eating too many eggs can lead to death. But we don't call eating food "potentially dangerous" regularly. We don't say "eggs are dangerous!" because eating 100 in a day will strip vitamin K from your cells.
I'm asking you to be specific and look at what you're calling dangerous and why. Take a step back and be objective and specific.
