For those who dont know him there is a Discovery Channel documentary you can find his story there. There were things unexplainable like surviving without water and food in the documentary but comparing these with not burning they are becoming ordinary.

How can we explain that ? As far as I see hes close enough to that fire to burn him and even if there is some kind of chemical to protect him from it should be ineffective in a few mins.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fPz3omqxFw[/youtube]

Everything will be explainable. Flames very smoky. I'd say lamp oil as used in fire juggling. Camera work as bad as spotting UFOs. Basically contact time in flame insufficient to cause burns.

Could have a lot of explanations, like a simple trick of perspective, since the camera is at a fixed distance (and of poor quality); it may look like he's smack in the middle of it while actually having some room to move with fire around him. Why doesn't the camera operator simply walk up to him to get a better shot?

But the 'how' isn't really that important. What's important is that this is supposed to be supernatural.

And as always when people attempt to prove the power of the supernatural, I take it seriously, but they don't seem to take it seriously enough; they only make it seem feeble and weak instead. If he can truly, by supernatural force, stay unharmed from prolonged exposure to direct flames, he'd be a world sensation; he could go out on the street in broad daylight being filmed by HD cameras, and have people pour petrol over him and light him on fire, and come out of it unscathed.

If they then say "No no - this was no ordinary fire; the fire came from him, and was supernatural itself" or some such, then all one can say is 'meh', because I have no experience with supernatural flames(!), and I'm not impressed by someone being unharmed on contact with something that can't hurt him. How could I know if 'supernatural flames' can do any harm, even if I for the sake of argument agreed it existed?