Firstly, I am quite sympathetic to Falun Gong as a philosophy, if not for the modest teachings of sound morals then simply for the horrible persecution its practitioners suffer in China. However, I do not understand the need to try to be "more" than a philosophy.
I do not think that Falun Gong is necessarily quackery, because quackery generally implies the selling of something on a false premise, and, as far as I understand, Falun Gong only tries to 'sell' an idea with no monetary strings attached, nor promises of miracle cures. Though, despite this it simply rubs me wrong when something attempts to be dressed in the guise of science as a means to lend credence to doubtful claims.
As for the quotes cited in the text, I hope it is clear for obvious reasons that emitting neutrons and gamma rays are not a state of being to aspire for. Rather, physically speaking such a state implies the disintegration of atoms; radioactive decay. Additionally, that of detecting electromagnetic waves from a person who is made of atoms and has traces of metals sounds exceedingly like a normal human. Or a hamster for that matter. Essentially, it reads like a Deepak Chopra book and none of it has to do with science in the slightest way - but this is not so bad, vecsuse it does not even attempt to look like science. Instead it is merely the claims that there is indeed some scientific grounds to justify the claims of the text.
Now, for the two links that are provided they do try to dress up as science. Very hard actually. As chance would have it, both of them hit on topics that I am quite familiar with so I will try to explain, or perhaps mainly justify my claim of why those links and their likes have nothing to do with science.
Article 1 deals with the effect of some Falun Gong force on cardiac cells in a nutrient solution. Overall the article does a decent job of seeming credible, but really it is essentially an exercise in confirmation bias. No tangible goals or hypotheses are presented; the aim is only to show an effect that can serve to prove the claim. There is no real control (i.e. the subject simply leaves the room / a 'non Falun Gong' practitioner is unable to reproduce the findings). Of course, for any meaningful data to emerge one would need to get rid of the temporal aspects, namely that it seems to be the same experimental setup that is used prolonged, rather than identical setups used seperately from equal starting points. From starting off elating according to which protocol the muscle is excised by and the solution it is kept in, the article relatively quickly regresses to statements such as "the practitioner did not even touch it with his hands" and "the person recording the experiment is not even a Falun Gong believer". Thus, appeals to pander a point, not scientific argument because when you go to dig for it, it really is not there.
The astonishing result is simply accepted by the author, despite the fact that many further and obvious lines of inquiry are readily available and that the overall setup at best amounts to a case study.
For the second article it starts off well. There is an unbased claim: Practitioners of Falun Gong are more healthy and longevic, which is entirely possible. Then there's a theory - it is because of better PMNs. Sprinkle with some terminology such as LPS and essentially the claim boils down to "better innate immunity". So, the claim might be supported by the theory and it can all be explained somewhat rudimentary as, for instance, the benefits of exercise or meditation. So far so good.
Unfortunately, at this point the article turns to discuss differential gene expression between PMNs of FG practitioners vs. non-practitioners. This makes no sense - it is well know that PMNs, like almost any cell, will elicit changes in genomic expression based on external stimuli and without further defining the subset of external stimuli it is a meaningless statement. Certainly, if there are similar changes among all FG practitioners it does not seem a good thing; innate immunity works exactly be adapting and aiming broadly. Of course, the data for these claims are not shared in the article and the rest of it reads like a biology essay, not something that should supposedly be research.
I do not mean to sound harsh but rather just objective. It is what it is, but science it is not. And thus rightly the discussion is taking place in the "philosophy" subforum.