‘Naked hermit’ forced back to civilization

[Maverick]

‘Naked hermit’ who lived on secluded island for nearly 3 decades forced back to civilization
by Kathleen Joyce

An elderly Japanese man who has lived naked on a secluded island for 29 years – only venturing out for water, rice cakes and supplies once a week – has been forced back into civilization.

Masafumi Nagasaki, 82, ventured to the island of Sotobanari, in the Yaeyama Islands near Taiwan, in 1989 and lived by himself until he made headlines in 2012 when Reuters did a profile on the “naked hermit.”

Nagasaki told Reuters in 2012 that he wished to die on the island that has been his home for so long.

“Finding a place to die is an important thing to do, and I’ve decided here is the place for me,” he said at the time.

“It hadn’t really occurred to me before how important it is to choose the place of your death, like whether it’s in a hospital or at home with family by your side,” he continued. “But to die here, surrounded by nature — you just can’t beat it, can you?”

It was not immediately clear how or why Nagasaki navigated to the deserted island.

There were reports he was married at some point in his life and had two children and that he ran a hostess club in Niigata, Japan, according to News.com.au.

Nagasaki said he was a factory worker in Osaka when a coworker told him about a “mysterious archipelago” and he wanted to leave civilization. He was also “horrified” at how much pollution was in the sea so he left and went to the island.

“In civilization people treated me like an idiot and made me feel like one. On this island I don’t feel like that,” he said.

“Here, on the island I don’t do what people tell me to do, I just follow nature’s rules. You can’t dominate nature so you have to obey it completely,” he explained to Reuters.

When he first arrived to the island, Nagasaki wore clothes but a strong typhoon destroyed his belongings.

“Walking around naked doesn’t really fit in with normal society, but here on the island it feels right, it’s like a uniform,” he told Reuters.

Despite his wishes to die on the island, Alvaro Cerezo, a blogger who spent five days with Nagasaki, told News.com.au that Nagasaki was evicted from the island by authorities in April and placed in government housing in Ishigaki, Japan.

“He was kicked out of the island, someone saw him on the island and it seems like he was weak,” Cerezo told News.com.au.

“They called the police and they took him back to civilization and that’s it. He couldn’t even fight back because he was weak. They won’t allow him to return.”

Nagasaki reportedly suffered from the flu.

“His health is OK, he was probably only sick or had the flu [when he was taken] but they won’t allow him to go back anymore, he cannot go there, it’s over,” Cerezo said.

[naturaldon]

I read about that, too. Luckyyyyyyyyyy.

[JimShedd112]

I realize the government’s action is for what they believe to be best for the man but I believe he should be left alone to live and die in peace, the way he wants. I wonder how much his decision (forced choice really) to live nude influenced authorities he must be looked after by them versus left to live free on his own terms.

Jim

[baresoul]

People here in civilization are thinking generally that it is so much better in civilization than being away independently from it, but civilization forces those not in civilization to comply, and gathers them into civilization when they don't even want it, through history and in this case. How good is civilization then? He went where he would want to die, and he survived 29 years there, it wasn't so bad for him, was it? Even if he was having the flu, he would have just gotten it and then would get better, but it seems suspiciously a likely possibility that he caught it when he was being "rescued" by others who took him from there. Civilization is not the best to stay with, having knowledge and skills for surviving independently from it is good. But while there are desirable things about leaving it with living in a much more sustainable way in this world that way, it must be done in smart ways to not get pulled back into civilization.

[Ramblinman]

Guys, I don't think we should waste much time comparing nudist life to the life of a naked hermit.
Even the quiet introverted among us might not enjoy being totally alone every day for years at a time.
I know I sure wouldn't.
He seems to have been a squatter on the island, so I can see why he was not allowed to return.

Don't get me wrong, I can imagine spending winters in Florida or Hawaii and in a quiet rural setting as well, but I am no hermit.
The late Jon Marc lived in a nudist resort in nearly perpetual nudity (as long as it wasn't too cold outside).
That's about as close to nudist paradise as a fellow can hope for.

[Bare_Truth]

............The late Jon Marc lived in a nudist resort in nearly perpetual nudity (as long as it wasn't too cold outside).
That's about as close to nudist paradise as a fellow can hope for.

I can certainly see the merit in what youi describe as a nudist paradise for John Marc, and perhaps it was well suited to John Marc's situation, however my20 acre rural land holding here in Missouri I find more paradisical as I have more independence and freedom of action than John Marc had because I own this land.

Now as social nudism requires some social interaction, the improvement would be if there were other naturist neighbors who were close enough to visit on occasion. Granted, there are some people who fall under Poor Richard's (Ben Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanac) admonition that "Guests like fish, after 3 days begin to stink".

Having my naturist/nudist friends stop by would enhance my enjoyment. To that end I am trying to better adapt my place to such events and if the current scorching weather will permit I hope to do some tree trimming to make a more travel / camping trailer friendly venue. It is nice to have like minded people stop by for good fellowship.

24 A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly:

Too bad someone on that Island couldnot have made a corner of their land available to the naked hermit so that he might live out his years unmolested by the authorities, but perhaps he was becoming anti-social or physically decrepit. Perhaps he could at least arrange to have his ashes scattered there. I think in my own case I would like something like that as symbolic of being part of the land I live on. But one has to watch out for bureaucrats that get bent out of shape if they cannot extend their micromanagement of other people even into after death.

[Ramblinman]

I can certainly see the merit in what youi describe as a nudist paradise for John Marc, and perhaps it was well suited to John Marc's situation,

Yes, for him it was paradise. He had health troubles and a troubled past, but was remarkably happy living his last days in the nudist camp.
God gave him what he needed.

however my20 acre rural land holding here in Missouri I find more paradisical as I have more independence and freedom of action than John Marc had because I own this land.

Rural acreage is also my idea of paradise. I love planting a garden and fruit trees. I guess I take after my naked ancestor Adam the Gardener. (before he and the Mrs. were evicted for violating the park rules).

Having my naturist/nudist friends stop by would enhance my enjoyment. To that end I am trying to better adapt my place to such events and if the current scorching weather will permit I hope to do some tree trimming to make a more travel / camping trailer friendly venue. It is nice to have like minded people stop by for good fellowship.

You have been very generous with your offer of camping. Perhaps as my fortunes improve I can make the trip out west to see you.
The Great Recession was, in my case the GREAT GREAT RECESSION. Not that I didn't have the love of family, a bounty in my garden, a quiet corner to sunbathe and many good times through those years, but I sure felt pinned down to the mat, to use wresting terminology. It takes time to climb out of a hole like that.

As much as I aspire to rural land, a friend cautioned me to the circumstances of her father, who moved to a remote rural area while still hale and hearty, but as his health declined, he found himself going to the doctor three or four times a week and the doctor's office was 60 miles of hard driving one way. His daughter was a nurse providing at-home nursing care and serving as driver for all those long road trips, but she finally insisted that he sell the house and move closer to his grandchildren and much closer to a doctor.
Perhaps I will be in a similar situation in 30 years, but why plan my whole life around a few years of sickness toward the end of this earthly journey?

Yes, clearly the hermit needed a friend or two even if he preferred total solitude.
I hope that he will not lose all peace and quiet in some urban institution for the aged.
There are some places more tranquil than others.

[New_Adventurer]

I would liked to have had the opportunity to visit John Mark, but job, wife, and 500 miles got in the way. I still may visit that area in the future.

[baresoul]

Guys, I don't think we should waste much time comparing nudist life to the life of a naked hermit.
Even the quiet introverted among us might not enjoy being totally alone every day for years at a time.
I know I sure wouldn't.
He seems to have been a squatter on the island, so I can see why he was not allowed to return.

It is too bad you are not understanding enough to be tolerant of a person not wanting to be back in civilization. This is just what I have been talking about. Yes, he wasn't an owner, that was why he was removed. No one was getting any money from him.

I am not promoting being a hermit. Almost no one wants that life, and I don't either. But he was one choosing that for living that way. It was what he still had worthwhile to him, and they took all that was worthwhile to him. It is very sad. It was sustainable and he did no harm, not even to animals. Owners could have permitted him to remain. They just didn't because they weren't getting money for it, though they would lose nothing. It is too bad.

I do say there are good ways to live sustainably apart from civilization, but for likeminded people to be in community together for it instead. It could be how people had generally lived for most of the time in this world, yet it could be with much more knowledge.

[Petros]

I might in the right circumstances be a hermit [note anyhow not all hermits are totally solitary]. I do not claim to understand the man - whom DO I understand? But I could imagine being in the situation.

But - do no harm? Harm is not truly defined - but every elephant, every man, every paramecium has an impact on the world and the life in it. He never ate a mussel, never swatted a mosquito, never pulled up and ate a root some other animal might have used? We can't say that.

I'm not so sure it is purely a matter of profit, either. The government for the best of motives would not want him to die there alone. The owner is getting nothing from his presence - would not gain from his absence. But an owner might worry about being held accountable if he died on the premises.

There are sadnesses and lessons in the story - but I think different ones.

[Ramblinman]

It is too bad you are not understanding enough to be tolerant of a person not wanting to be back in civilization.

Baresoul, I understand well the problems with civilization (apart from the City of God that will arrive at the time of God's own choosing someday soon.
I think your argument stumbles a bit on the assumption that the nearby presence of other humans constitutes civilization in every instance.
Civilization means a culture that involves dwelling in cities.
If you are a short walk from another jungle hut, that doesn't make either of you "city dwellers", nor participants in the great rebellion against God that is epitomized by the metallic statue that King Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of representing the mighty but evil civilizations that have taken a stand against God down through the ages. Our own age is arguably the iron mixed with clay that God will soon smash with a stone "cut without (use of) hands".

I do say there are good ways to live sustainably apart from civilization, but for likeminded people to be in community together for it instead. It could be how people had generally lived for most of the time in this world, yet it could be with much more knowledge.

I most heartily agree with this point you have made.

Perhaps the hermit could have simply made an arrangement with the owner of the property. We don't know what power the government (of Japan) has to evict people for "their own protection" even if there were comprehensive permission to live there.

[Ramblinman]

Brother Petros:

The man eventually came to decide that clothing was not needed on this tropical island.
He could have fashioned some sort of garment out of animal skins, tree bark or vines and leaves, but it would have been totally pointless.
Apart from his total solitude, which is uncommon for a social animal such as humans, he reverted, without a single regret, to the life for which humanity was created:
harmony with nature and enjoying the comfort of nudity in a perpetually warm place.
I have been in places that are so profoundly beautiful and holy that wearing clothing seemed an act of indecency, rather irreverent.
I understand the need for concessions on a snowy day.


As to the supposed demerits of having an impact on the plants and animals around him, I must disagree.
Plants benefit from having some of their vegetative parts and fruit consumed, provided it is within certain parameters.
Likewise herbivores depend upon predators to select their weakest ones to remove from the herd.
I am not so naive as to preach the doctrine of the "Noble Savage", but neither will I listen quietly to the argument that humans cannot live in harmony with nature.
Most humans do not live in harmony with their environment, but it is certainly possible, particularly for those who turn to the Lord for guidance on the matter.

[Petros]

I am not so naive as to preach the doctrine of the "Noble Savage", but neither will I listen quietly to the argument that humans cannot live in harmony with nature.

Quite. We are not, I think, at odds. Nature is built on the food chain, each eating other, each feeding other. I do get a little perturbed when it is suggested that wolves and humans should be herbivores, as if grass and tatties clearly have no rights.

[Ramblinman]

I am not so naive as to preach the doctrine of the "Noble Savage", but neither will I listen quietly to the argument that humans cannot live in harmony with nature.

Quite. We are not, I think, at odds. Nature is built on the food chain, each eating other, each feeding other. I do get a little perturbed when it is suggested that wolves and humans should be herbivores, as if grass and tatties clearly have no rights.

This is true, but there is more to it than that. Nature also has a lot of room for tender paternal care, altruism within the herd or pack.
Humans are both part of the natural world as well as God-ordained gardeners or park rangers if you prefer a more modern interpretation.

We can use natural resources in a sustainable way and trust that God has designed a system that can restock, replenish, revitalize (within limits)
We do indeed have an impact on our immediate vicinity, but in a benign fashion:
Planting crops, but rotating the fields, keeping some land as woods and harvesting things such as fuelwood, timbers, mushrooms and fruit without impacting yield from decade to decade.
If we blaze trails, we design them and set limits to traffic to minimize erosion, and move trails a few yards over if necessary.

I see the humor in your comment about grass having "rights".
Indeed if grazers increase without limits, there will be, on some bleak morning, no grass for any of them.
More likely diseases would sweep through a crowded herd.
A classic study in ecology is taught to first year students regarding coyotes and rabbits.
As rabbits multiply, coyote parents find it easier to bring fresh meat to the den, more pups survive to adulthood.
And as the coyotes multiply, they make inroads in the rabbit population.
As rabbits begin to decline, the coyote parents find it more difficult to bring fresh meat to the den and fewer pups survive to adulthood.
But just as important is the fluctuating availability of forage for the rabbits, also a function of population dynamics.

If the passage about lion and lamb, wolf and sheep are to be taken literally, there may be some future ecology where animals never die, where population never decreases nor increases.
We are not yet living in such an age.
But for all its imperfections, there can still be a path of harmony for humanity, living as naked as our climate allows, enjoying fresh local foods and passing on this idyll to our posterity.

[baresoul]

I might in the right circumstances be a hermit [note anyhow not all hermits are totally solitary]. I do not claim to understand the man - whom DO I understand? But I could imagine being in the situation.
But - do no harm? Harm is not truly defined - but every elephant, every man, every paramecium has an impact on the world and the life in it. He never ate a mussel, never swatted a mosquito, never pulled up and ate a root some other animal might have used? We can't say that.

The owner is getting nothing from his presence - would not gain from his absence. But an owner might worry about being held accountable if he died on the premise.

The level of impact matters in some things more than others. Elephants, and other animals in the wild, live in a balance, rather perfect in arrangement for a fallen and cursed world that this is. And mentioning impact from microbes, seriously? We can't compare ourselves to microbes for the sustainability of our environmental impact.With our impact from civilization, the systems of the natural world are all threatened. Such a man who moved away from civilization, with his account of not using animals anymore, had almost no impact on environments compared to us. And you want to still leave blame on him with the accusation that he ate a mussel, which isn't shown, took a root that meant another animal starved for (Really!), or even swatted a mosquito when it was biting, so he was harmful to environments, as if it was comparable to what we humans generally are doing. I am not buying that.

You did have a legitimate point that an owner would worry about liability if he died there. It would be something if he knew about it. It just might have gone differently and he wouldn't have even known the man was ever on the island. But then we wouldn't be talking about this now, either.

It is too bad you are not understanding enough to be tolerant of a person not wanting to be back in civilization.

Baresoul, I understand well the problems with civilization (apart from the City of God that will arrive at the time of God's own choosing someday soon.
I think your argument stumbles a bit on the assumption that the nearby presence of other humans constitutes civilization in every instance.
Civilization means a culture that involves dwelling in cities.
If you are a short walk from another jungle hut, that doesn't make either of you "city dwellers", nor participants in the great rebellion against God that is epitomized by the metallic statue that King Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of representing the mighty but evil civilizations that have taken a stand against God down through the ages. Our own age is arguably the iron mixed with clay that God will soon smash with a stone "cut without (use of) hands".

I do say there are good ways to live sustainably apart from civilization, but for likeminded people to be in community together for it instead. It could be how people had generally lived for most of the time in this world, yet it could be with much more knowledge.

I most heartily agree with this point you have made.

I do understand and my position is not stumbling. Without civilization, a few different communities could be in distances from each other that could be traveled. But a great enough distance from civilization is desirable for people, communities if not individuals on their own, to live being really independent of it. This independence should be with sustainable living, with what is needed in the environment and growing things, and not using more than that, and nothing would be needed with depending on interaction with any of civilization.

As to the supposed demerits of having an impact on the plants and animals around him, I must disagree.
Plants benefit from having some of their vegetative parts and fruit consumed, provided it is within certain parameters.
Likewise herbivores depend upon predators to select their weakest ones to remove from the herd.
I am not so naive as to preach the doctrine of the "Noble Savage", but neither will I listen quietly to the argument that humans cannot live in harmony with nature.
Most humans do not live in harmony with their environment, but it is certainly possible, particularly for those who turn to the Lord for guidance on the matter.

Turning to the Lord (the one God, Yahweh) is needed, but that would still need coming to the sustainable way to live here according to stewardship assigned to us without living in ways contributing harm to this world from God's creation. We can live that way, but we don't with staying in civilization the way we live.

I am not so naive as to preach the doctrine of the "Noble Savage", but neither will I listen quietly to the argument that humans cannot live in harmony with nature.

Quite. We are not, I think, at odds. Nature is built on the food chain, each eating other, each feeding other. I do get a little perturbed when it is suggested that wolves and humans should be herbivores, as if grass and tatties clearly have no rights.

Wolves and animals in the wild live in a balance in nature. Humanity has exceeded the bounds and is living with harm to environments.

Wolves and the others in the wild have the balance that we don't, they eat prey but can't go beyond limits without negative impact on their own populations. Humans find, so far, they can produce more food, that some of them, among the priveleged anyway, get, and have not quite come to the limit where it gets really serious. But our impact is greater, far less of wildlife exists still because of humanity's activities. Being herbivorous would be much better. Do you really want to say human rights, and animal rights, are the same as those of grass, and potatoes(?) ? If you actually believe such, know that many more plants are used, besides water, land, and resources, for the animals raised and slaughtered for use by any among us.

I am not so naive as to preach the doctrine of the "Noble Savage", but neither will I listen quietly to the argument that humans cannot live in harmony with nature.

Quite. We are not, I think, at odds. Nature is built on the food chain, each eating other, each feeding other. I do get a little perturbed when it is suggested that wolves and humans should be herbivores, as if grass and tatties clearly have no rights.

This is true, but there is more to it than that. Nature also has a lot of room for tender paternal care, altruism within the herd or pack.
Humans are both part of the natural world as well as God-ordained gardeners or park rangers if you prefer a more modern interpretation.

We can use natural resources in a sustainable way and trust that God has designed a system that can restock, replenish, revitalize (within limits)
We do indeed have an impact on our immediate vicinity, but in a benign fashion:
Planting crops, but rotating the fields, keeping some land as woods and harvesting things such as fuelwood, timbers, mushrooms and fruit without impacting yield from decade to decade.
If we blaze trails, we design them and set limits to traffic to minimize erosion, and move trails a few yards over if necessary.

I see the humor in your comment about grass having "rights".
Indeed if grazers increase without limits, there will be, on some bleak morning, no grass for any of them.
More likely diseases would sweep through a crowded herd.
A classic study in ecology is taught to first year students regarding coyotes and rabbits.
As rabbits multiply, coyote parents find it easier to bring fresh meat to the den, more pups survive to adulthood.
And as the coyotes multiply, they make inroads in the rabbit population.
As rabbits begin to decline, the coyote parents find it more difficult to bring fresh meat to the den and fewer pups survive to adulthood.
But just as important is the fluctuating availability of forage for the rabbits, also a function of population dynamics.

If the passage about lion and lamb, wolf and sheep are to be taken literally, there may be some future ecology where animals never die, where population never decreases nor increases.
We are not yet living in such an age.
But for all its imperfections, there can still be a path of harmony for humanity, living as naked as our climate allows, enjoying fresh local foods and passing on this idyll to our posterity.

We mostly have not been living so benignly as stewards like park rangers. This benign way should happen, but who are you talking about as doing that? I say we need much more sustainable ways for that. This stability in nature is still with death, at it is the fallen world, but it is working.

It will come to the restoration without death to include the repentant who are redeemed. No creatures will keep dying.

It was quite silly to talk about rights of grass, right?