I recognize this as completely empirical evidence, so take it as that.
I am a Mormon. As part of our religious observance, we fast for 2 meals on the first Sunday of every month. Also, I have fasted for the entire duration of the Muslim month of Ramadan twice now.
For Mormons, food and drink is abstained starting Saturday night after dinner until Sunday night's dinner. By the time dinner rolls around Sunday night, I am pretty weak. However, I have noticed that when I fast that Sunday, the following week, my system seems to clean itself out. I feel more alert, and energy seems to peak for a prolonged duration that first week.
While participating in Ramadan, food and drink is abstained from dawn to sunset for each day during the month. This usually means packing in the necessary proteins and carbohydrates for slow breakdown in the morning, and a filler at night. Both times, I shed about 10-15 pounds.
Ramadan was much more difficult for me to participate in, because I need to remain alert and active while at work. I can maintain that needed level until early in the afternoon, when I start to slow down. By the time my shift is over, I'm really not very productive. However, right about the time I am getting off of my shift, I notice that my hunger pains disappear, even though I'm still weak.
While I can't say I notice the increased energy or alertness at the end of the Ramadan, shedding the weight was a positive bonus, although it was not intended.
In both cases, Mormon fasting and participating in Ramadan, I can say that I have noticed personal health benefits, whether it is increased energy, or losing weight. Others I have talked to have noticed the same thing, both Mormons and Muslims alike.
So, it doesn't surprise me that there will be immune system benefits as well.
I am not Muslim, but I was born and raised in a Muslim country, and almost all my friends are Muslim. As you note, in the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast from dawn to dusk. Right before dawn, they eat seheri, and after dusk, they eat iftaar. During the month of Ramadan, no one seems to lose any weight, mainly because everyone seems to overcompensate during iftaar. Where I come from iftaar food is much oilier and richer than the food people usually eat, and also people tend to eat much more during iftaar than they would otherwise. My friends all regularly report gaining weight at the end of Ramadan. This is probably a cultural thing in my country of origin, but from what I have heard, things are same in other Muslim countries.
p.s. Do you mean that your evidence is anecdotal as opposed to empirical?
Yes, unfortunately in many Arab/Asian countries people over-indulge at Iftar time. It seems less of an issue for "converts" of different origins = more of a cultural thing, as Muhammad -saws- encouraged people to eat and drink moderately, and certainly not over-indulge in a month like Ramadan.
Some people, including me, avoid this though. When I was obese (for different reasons), I used to lose 3 or 4 kilograms each Ramadan, but failed to sustain that once the month was over because of my previously terrible lifestyle. My mother also gets leaner during Ramadan because she prepares her own healthy Iftar (mostly Harira, a Moroccan soup, some figs, whole-grains bread and other "sane" alternatives to oily/sugary food)
I'm a Mormon, too, and just wanted to point out a couple of things:
> we fast for 2 meals on the first Sunday of every month.
Not everyone does (pregnant or nursing women, or the sick, for example (edit: or people who just don't wanna)), and not everyone fasts for that period of time. Some people in different roles in the church (what non-Mormons might call a prophetic / visionary role) are encouraged to fast more often.
> For Mormons, food and drink is abstained starting Saturday night after dinner until Sunday night's dinner.
Many will frequently shift their fasting times. I do. Just posting this because I often talk to people who tell me exactly what I believe, because they read it online.
> In both cases, Mormon fasting and participating in Ramadan, I can say that I have noticed personal health benefits
I'm just another anecdote, but I have noticed no personal health benefits. What I would call thinking or meditation benefits, perhaps. I have frequently felt relief that while I may have overeaten the day before a fast, my belt will usually fit nicely on the following fast day. ;)
> Not everyone does (pregnant or nursing women, or the sick, for example), and not everyone fasts for that period of time. Some people in different roles in the church (what non-Mormons might call a prophetic / visionary role) are encouraged to fast more often.
Indeed. I wanted to put that in my initial comment, and forgot. If you are sick, pregnant, or there are other health concerns, or doctor's orders to prevent you from fasting, then you don't.
Also, you are encouraged to fast more frequently for spiritual matters indeed.
Can you separate belief from labelling someone prohpetic/visionary? I label a dog a dog because I believe it's a dog. I don't call a cat a dog with plenty of skepticism. I'm not going to give anyone the label of prophetic/visionary, even with plenty of skepticism. As a non-mormon I consider the prophetic/visionary concept to be fiction, and won't use it on anyone because I don't consider it possible - skepticism doesn't even begin to enter the equation - and labelling someone as something I consider them not to be would be odd. I might just as well label them president.
Sure you can. To give an example outside of Mormonism, you can say that the Oracle at Delphi had a prophetic / visionary role within ancient Greek culture, without having to believe in the Oracle's prophetic visions.
Sometimes we are labeled. You may label yourself Harvard graduate as much as you want but if Harvard says you aren't then you aren't. You may call yourself a Catholic but if thevCatholic Church says you aren't, you simply aren't.
Mormons claim Christianity and espouse some Christian principals (i.e. blood atonement for sins of the world), although many of their beliefs (i.e. God is an evolved man and through adherence to Mormon doctrine men can become Gods after death) put them well outside the realm of what is considered mainstream Christianity.
I'm not sure these additional beliefs necessarily disqualify them as "Christian" though as they do appear to have retained most of the fundamental basics.....
I suppose it depends on ones definition of Christian. No doubt plenty of "Christian" denominations consider that others aren't.
"In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the Cross"
-Nietzsche
The "standard" beliefs of Christianity are expressed in the Nicene creed[1][2]. Even recent evangelical churches believe the things listed there, although they probably don't recite the creed itself.
Most mainstream Christians don't consider Mormons as Christians because they have added to the Bible, which is considered a heresy.
[2] the differences between the two creeds listed there are basically what split the Orthodox church from the Western church and indirectly led to the fall of Constantinople. So some people consider them fairly important, but others don't.
I agree with you. Many groups would claim another group isn't Christian, especially as the definition of "Christian" has shifted and changed throughout the years. A good article outlining some main points is here - https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng. (for the record I am a Mormon, and a Christian. :)
The atonement was (supposedly) because of God's own incarnation as Christ, our of love, not because of some blood offering to God (i.e. the crucifixion, which was not even meant as such, anyway).
I realize modern religion has tried to blunt the concept (it's all about love etc)... but blood atonement figures very prominently in the doctrine presented in the bible...
Romans3:25, Hebrews9:22, Rev1:5 for instance. There are plenty more. Very prominent concept. Which is why up until recently there was plenty of talk about being "washed in the blood" in Christian churches.
(I believe the manifest brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness of the concept was one of the primary things leading to my rejection of Christianity at a very early age.... no offense to anyone's particular faith... just my point of view)
I think the brutality must have been intentional. To the Romans, a "good death" was quick and painless. For example, if you were a citizen of Rome, then even if you were sentenced to death, you were guaranteed a beheading instead of something slower. To the Greeks, keeping the body intact was very important. That's why they gave Socrates hemlock to drink; even though it must have been agonizing, it was respectful because it maintained the integrity of his body. Jesus' death mixed the worst kind of death to both Greeks and Romans, and also fit in the curse that the Jews had against anyone who died hanging on a tree. This offensiveness is called out explicitly in 1 Corinthians 1 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1...
I think you have it backwards. The 'brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness' of blood sacrifice is the whole point of Christianity. I realise Judaism has changed a lot, but in Jesus' time it was an unforgiving system. The death of Jesus was supposed to supplant all other kinds of sacrifice, and bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more - you simply had to ask for forgiveness. When you discuss OT scriptures you aren't talking about Christianity.
> bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more
I believe the Biblical narrative describing the significance of Jesus' sacrifice was about past sins, that which humans bore without actually committing. I do not believe the death of Jesus in any way suggests, in Christian folklore, that you don't need to atone for sins.
FWIW, I think the Catholic Church (which didn't exist until hundreds of years after the whole Jesus thing) considers things like rosary prayers as atonement.
The three verses cited on blood atonement are from the NT.
I realize the idea is that the blood of Jesus was supposed to end blood atonement and usher in a new era. However, I never thought this idea was reasonable, never identified with a God who would set such a system up, and never felt that this idea at the core of a religion would ultimately lead to positive outcomes or really much more than continued barbarism and cruelty, but I'm not going to argue with your faith.
I just think Jesus was more or less successfully trying to fix all of the problems he saw with the religion he was born into. The OT God is quite evil (or at least does/allows/commands evil things). A God who doesn't require sacrifice, forgives sins as they are confessed and eschews violence is quite a step up.
Given what he had to work with I think he did pretty well.
Unless Muslims believe in Jesus as deity (and salvation through Christ's atonement) as Mormons do, that seems an unlikely statement.
Mormons do get drawn outside of Christianity by some christians for a variety of reasons (non-trinitarian, open canon, cosmological background quasi-polytheism), and some people have suggested classifying the faith as another Abrahamic one as a means of sidestepping that discussion, which may be where one could get the idea that the comparison to Muslims is a good one. But if Mormons are outside mainstream Christianity, it's only marginally so.
The point I was making is that both Islam and Mormonism are based on Christianity and so share many common beliefs, but they both extend on this base. Personally I find Mormonism a fascinating religion, but I do think it has moved past being just another branch of Christianity.
No. Muslims believe only parts of the Christian bible are divine. Mormons believe all parts of both the old and the new testament are divine, and addition believe in a third book (that I've only read the intro to) which has additional tales of Jesus Christ and companions.
They are as Christian as catholics are, perhaps even more so as in my opinion they follow his ideology a whole lot better.
I have Crohn's disease, have therefore been exposed to numerous doubtful stories about 'boosting the immune' system. With my illness, a 'boost' would actually make me sicker, whereas I find that fasting for a couple of days results in improvement of symptoms for me. Why? Obviously because my digestive system becomes empty, and there is less irritation of damaged intestinal lining. Going by this study, an increased production of white blood cells should make me sicker. My anecdotal evidence does not support their findings.
Long story short - if their claims are true they will be able to be reproduced by other researchers. Until then, colour me sceptical.
If your overactive immune system results in worsening Crohn's symptoms, then fasting would improve your symptoms (by reducing the immune system temporarily + the benefit of no irritants in the digestive system). When the immune system returns to a "normal" (or normal-for-you) state afterwards, you also have irritants back in your digestive system, making it impossible to separate.
The question is: do your Crohn's symptoms improve concurrently with the duration of the fast, extend beyond it, or track as expected with the presence of food in your digestive system?
I guess where I'm going is that there may be two variables at play that can't be easily separated in the case of Crohn's.
I think boost is the pop journalism lingo. Not what the study was measuring. The study mentions its positive effect on eczema, another autoimmune condition like Crohn's. My personal anecdotal evidence has to do with adult acne and hives. Something I suffer with on a daily basis. Flair ups for both stop when I go on calorie restricted diets or fast.
Yes, I believe that is what happens. On the other hand, my symptoms often seem to improve if I eat pizza for each meal for 24hrs (order one night, consume left overs for the next day). :)
Crohn's is one illness that attracts more than it's fair share of woo and 'special diets' and so on. As a result I've become fairly sceptical of any one-off scientific papers that make certain claims, whether they are related to auto-immune diseases or not.
Your skepticism is probably good, but fasting (and its semi-related brother, caloric restriction) has been the subject of scientific investigation for a long time, so 'one-off' hardly captures the essence of it.
So.. per this article, shouldn't Mormons and Muslims have stronger immune systems?
I wonder if they do. Or are otherwise are more healthy because of this practice. I would be a bit surprised if this were the case, although I could be wrong.
I do notice Utah is in top 10 US states for life expectancy (no tobacco might be another reason), but it is not in the top 5. So I'm guessing fasting (and/or a religious preference) may not really produce amazing life extending benefits after all.
Edit: Although fasting does have a long history in religious tradition, it is often associated with some not-so-savory movements as well....
Any kind of stress will trigger an increase in immune system activity and cell regeneration. Fasting is one way to do it, working out until you're exhausted is another. A balance between the two is probably best for training your body to be strong.
I am not religious or anything, but I think some of the religious rules come from their leaders realizing that making them "rules from God" would benefit their people and give a better chance of survival:
- kosher rules are pretty much there to prevent people from preparing food in unsanitary ways or eating potentially dangerous stuff (eating pork will kill you by worms growing in your gut)
- the 10 commandments are basic community rules to ensure they don't end up fighting and killing each other, helping the race to survive.
- fasting on Ramadan was probably created by a religious leader who felt better after doing it himself and though it to be a good idea for everybody else to do it.
>> - fasting on Ramadan was probably created by a religious leader who felt better after doing it himself and though it to be a good idea for everybody else to do it.
That religious leader would be Muhammad.
That's one way to see things and how I explain part of my belief in Islam to non-religious people: Worst case scenario, I'm just doing things that I believe are pretty smart (fasting, praying, helping the poor and oprhan, keeping a strong sense of family, etc.); best-case scenario it's actually God that told us to do those things. Actually, it's mainly because I believe all those recommendations are pretty darn smart and coherent that I believe it might well be God's message. (Muhammad was an illiterate shepherd after all, hardly who you'd expected to come with these things)
you're supposed to 'believe' to benefit from the best case scenario dude :) just rationalizing about it is not supposed to be enough...
and additionally, fasting was around before it was introduced in islam; check it's versions in judaism, christianity... actually, it was also around before that. people used to fast during equinoxes for a very long time for all sorts of different ceremonies...
Well, Islam does recognize the other prophets and their religions (so that includes Judaism and Christianity). And I don't agree with the fact that "it was around even before that", as people didn't fast regularly and in the same fashion as jews/christians/muslims do.
And IMHO, belief doesn't have to be totally separate from reasoning. We're human beings, our beliefs are definitely influenced by what our reason (among other stimuli) dictates us.
I started my comment by saying that this is one way to see religions, a way that I sometime present to curious non-religious friends. There's also a more philosophical (and comprehensive) way to see them that I can discuss with people that are just more "into that". And of course, as a religious person, I do believe in God but that doesn't mean that it needs to be a blind belief without any reasoning.
Correct , there are many other religious groups that fast - Hindus, Jains, Christians etc. I've found that fasting practices among Coptic Christians is more intense/severe than any other religion I have seen (so far at least)
Why does insecurity come into play? Couldn't there be other reasons for God being adamant about what a person believes (i.e., worships)? What if man's nature really is best nurtured by and finds its completion in (his telos) the Being called God?
If your kids insist on eating cotton candy (which works against their health) amid a veritable feast (that is delightful and nutritious), wouldn't your ire be justified?
Disclaimer: This is my personal belief, it seems it seems to offended some passionate dissenters. I understand, I've been there before too.
God is often depicted as moody and chronically concerned with what we think of him. I think that's a ridiculous projection of our own human insecurities.
If a creator like God existed, he would be billions of orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Why would he care if we were skeptical? Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything. I doubt God, if he existed, would stop loving me even if I hated him. He would be above all that, in my view.
If there is a creator or God, I personally believe he doesn't care if we believe in him. He's too intelligent and mature for that to ever matter to him
Side note edit: It has always been interesting to me that moderate agnosticism is always the most drowned out religious view. I would be better off as a militant atheist or familiar, friendly theist if I cared about internet points.
I looked hard and can't find the exact verse, but there's a specific verse in the Quran that basically says the same thing:
If all of humanity gathered to believe, it wouldn't add Him anything. And if all of humanity gathered to disbelieve, it wouldn't remove anything from Him.
People still have this latent idea of God as an old bearded guy (or any variation of that myth) "interacting" with the world (via spells and miracles).
Consider God as not a being but the infinite consciousness that pervades every particle/subparticle. Considering God as a finite (great) being who sits somewhere high in the space and runs the show on Earth is limiting the supreme being.
Upanishads states that God exists in each one of us as the pure consciousness that experiences the three states – waking, dreaming and sleeping. The mind with ego (I-ness) is the veil that has made us blind to experience this consciousness (experiencing consciousness by consciousness is possible as stated by wise men but describing that experience in words isn't possible because words are objects of mind and consciousness is beyond mind.)
"God is often depicted as moody and overly worried about what we think of him."
Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.
"Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?
The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?
I'm asking these questions (not attacking! I value your response!) because whenever we go into the "my personal belief is..." it seems prudent to examine whether such beliefs have rational warrant, or are they simply another way of wishing the world worked that way?
"Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?
By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?
> Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.
God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament. Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in. I sometimes believe in a creator who, for the purposes of familiarity, I call God.
> "Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?
Yeah, that is what I meant. I will change that, thanks.
> The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?
I don't personally believe the scriptures are anything but contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction, so I cannot answer your question.
> "Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?
Of course, I am. I can only maybe accept that there was a creator. Everything else is just pure speculation. I'd like to think that this creator is unfathomable to mankind. That being said, I often doubt that this creator exists at all.
> By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?
Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong. If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell.
"God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament."
Clearly there are descriptions of God's kindled wrath that is admittedly frightful and overwhelming. Do these eruptions of anger and fury and wrath somehow militate against a standard above or outside God Himself? What's the origin of this standard? How does it (or can it?) apply to Him? Objections, it seems, are either rooted in taste ("I prefer this because of something about my personal predilections.") or in an understanding of the world as it is or ought to be ("Reason clearly shows that...")
"Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in." You very well might not believe in such a God. But what psychology is at work here? I can't read your mind, but if you indeed resist such a notion of a God who can erupt in wrath or even treasure up wrath against anyone who rejects Him, would this rejection be a product of mere taste? Should things of ultimate importance be considered on something as (I would consider) fickle as taste?
My point of bringing up the idea of God's love in the context of the Bible wasn't meant to say you accepted the text as true or inspired, only that if we are objecting to the historical Christian concept of God, we should at least try to deal with the source of its self-understanding since the defects of Christianity stems either from its faithfulness to its sources or its deviation from its sources.
"I can only maybe accept that there was a creator." -- Happy to hear you are not out and out closed out to the idea of a Creator. "Everything else is just pure speculation," which is an interesting claim in itself, but it seems to be an implicit admission that the hard work of metaphysics is an indispensable part of our dialogue. Your rejection of Christian scripture may be warranted, but I'd be curious as to how you concluded it is a "contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction." Is this based on your own reading? You don't owe me an explanation, but so much seems to hang on this point. Even if it were demonstrably not a hodge-podge mess of history, fiction, poetry, and teaching, would that even sway your seeming pre-commitment to the words you wrote: "Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in?"
"Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong." -- that seems to be the a realistic response. Scripture certainly paints that picture.
"If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell." -- An infinitely wise God would clearly understand your own mind on this. The ultimate question is whether hell is ever justified even in the case of those who claim a degree of ignorance? That's another discussion, but I am glad you are thinking about it at least hypothetically.
"Either way, I'm willing to take that risk." -- Blaise Pascal would love to discuss with you what constitutes a rational risk on this count. Risk-taking is a good thing, wouldn't you agree, if it is eminently grounded in reason?
Thank you so much for this exchange. I don't have all the answers, but like you I am happy to hang my hat on anything that has the ring of truth. I am openly a traditional, classical Christian, but I'm always willing to dialogue and calibrate my beliefs in the light of the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.
for the sake of argument let's assume there is a God. and let's say He was better than all the things He created. better than that awesome sunset that you saw that took your breath away; better than that favorite meal you love -- you know the one. love is giving the object of your love the best... the best you've got. what if God giving Himself was Love defined?
It certainly is reasonable to look for an archetype for what we consider transcendent acts and qualities. Even the most ardent atheist generally is moved by acts of mercy, heroics, sacrifice, and unmerited love.
His chosen framework cannot properly and consistently account for these things, perhaps the best he can do is proffer a narrative about bio-chemical impulses and evolutionary advantage -- but the transcendent "feel" at the end of the day seems no more than an illusion of nature.
That's a bad assumption to start with because there is no evidence of such a thing. "just for the sake of argument, let's assume there are invisible horses everywhere. (followed by explanation of how these horses are responsible for love)"
Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical.
So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.
>God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things.
Neither is an invisible horse. These all fall under the category of things that there is no physical evidence for.
>So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads?
No, because his entire premise is based on the existence of something that follows no logic or physical laws. Something that violates the laws of logic cannot be reasoned about.
a valid argument is valid apart from the truth of its premises [1]. I am perfectly happy to agree that an argument's construction is formally valid and still deny it's conclusion.
all sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound.
I never said it was. I said it had a bad assumption, which makes the whole thing entirely pointless and self-serving.
Entering a debate where you make your arguments using the form "Assume I am right about the thing we are debating. Now here are all of the logical conclusions of that." is completely worthless because nobody cares about the logical conclusions when the argument is about the part you are taking under assumption.
The original post was, "If God exists, I doubt he cares if we believe in him or not. I like to believe he would not be that insecure."
My response was addressing the part about insecurity. You are objecting to the original poster's thought experiment -- "If God exists" -- which I was allowing for the sake of argument.
So you are objecting to my continuation: Is this what you are intending to do?
He was indeed a merchant, and later worked as Khadija's accountant (before he married her) when he received the revelation.
But he was a shepherd during his youth and was illiterate (even when he received the revelation and was a merchant/accountant, this is a period where a lot is based on oral communication).
Not sure about that "became a warrior" part (although he was what you could call a political leader, which included -in that time- participating in wars)
Is there any study comparing observant Mormons vs. a similar population showing better health?
Likewise, is there any study comparing observant Muslims vs. a similar population showing better health?
It would be interesting to see either. I'm skeptical (because I feel like every religion claims that their particular diet has health benefits) but open to seeing a study.
active Mormons from age 25 (Anderson, 1999). Males had a life expectancy of 84.1 years, which was 9.8 years greater than that of 1989–1991 U.S. white males. Females had a life expectancy of 86.1 years, which was 5.6 years greater than that of 1989–1991 U.S. white females
I am a Mormon. As part of our religious observance, we fast for 2 meals on the first Sunday of every month. Also, I have fasted for the entire duration of the Muslim month of Ramadan twice now.
For Mormons, food and drink is abstained starting Saturday night after dinner until Sunday night's dinner. By the time dinner rolls around Sunday night, I am pretty weak. However, I have noticed that when I fast that Sunday, the following week, my system seems to clean itself out. I feel more alert, and energy seems to peak for a prolonged duration that first week.
While participating in Ramadan, food and drink is abstained from dawn to sunset for each day during the month. This usually means packing in the necessary proteins and carbohydrates for slow breakdown in the morning, and a filler at night. Both times, I shed about 10-15 pounds.
Ramadan was much more difficult for me to participate in, because I need to remain alert and active while at work. I can maintain that needed level until early in the afternoon, when I start to slow down. By the time my shift is over, I'm really not very productive. However, right about the time I am getting off of my shift, I notice that my hunger pains disappear, even though I'm still weak.
While I can't say I notice the increased energy or alertness at the end of the Ramadan, shedding the weight was a positive bonus, although it was not intended.
In both cases, Mormon fasting and participating in Ramadan, I can say that I have noticed personal health benefits, whether it is increased energy, or losing weight. Others I have talked to have noticed the same thing, both Mormons and Muslims alike.
So, it doesn't surprise me that there will be immune system benefits as well.