Evidential Exemplarity and the Science-Driven Self-Spirituality of the Wim Hof Method

Abstract: This article investigates the contemporary wellness milieu through the lens of the Wim Hof Method, a therapeutic technique that combines cold exposure with breathwork and meditation practices. It positions Wim Hof and his Method within the context of media-driven wellness celebrities, navigating its interfaces with scientific legitimacy by highlighting the intertwined role of evidence and exemplary demonstrations in validating the effectiveness and credibility of the Method on media platforms. Through a combination of media anthropological examination and participant observation, the Wim Hof Method is posited as embodying a science-driven, neurocentric variation of contemporary self-spirituality, understood through the emphasis on the voluntary regulation of physiological responses in the pursuit of self-improvement and spiritual growth. More broadly, the analysis addresses a gap in the research on therapeutic wellness by shedding light through the Wim Hof Method on the dynamic relationship between exemplification and evidence at the intersection of alternative medicine, science, and popular media.

Keywords: Wim Hof Method; cold exposure; alternative medicine; self-improvement; exemplarity; evidence; self-spirituality

____________________

Introduction

Wim Hof is a Dutch extreme athlete and wellness celebrity known as the ‘Iceman’ for his extraordinary ability to withstand freezing temperatures, with considerable transmedia traction. According to 65-year-old Hof, he was drawn to cold water from a young age, eventually beginning his cold exposure practice in the ponds of Beatrixpark, Amsterdam. However, it wasn’t until the 1990s, following the tragic loss of his wife to suicide, that he transformed his practice into a therapeutic Method, which has since garnered attention for its apparent scientific validation.¹ The Wim Hof Method can be described as a therapeutic technique designed for training the body’s visceral responses and affective capacities, or for cultivating “health, strength, and happiness” as he describes. The Method works in three mutually complementing somatic-semiotic registers. These registers, or “Pillars,” comprise 1) cold exposure through winter swimming, ice baths, or cold showers, 2) breathing practice involving deliberate hyperventilation accompanied by extended breath holds, and 3) ‘commitment’ or ‘Mindset,’ which comes down to a type of meditation and visualization practice for developing will-power and erasing self-doubt.

Initially rising to fame as a micro-celebrity (Marwick and Boyd 2011) within niche online communities, Hof’s current prominence spans a multitude of platforms and channels, encompassing documentaries, social media artifacts, and appearances on celebrity podcasts, defying any clear distinctions between old and new media celebrity (also Pihlaja 2022). Not only has he starred in his own reality TV show, Freeze the Fear with Wim Hof (BBC One, 2022), but his Method also thrives in social media groups, where practitioners share experiences and tips, engage scientific findings—ranging from critical interpretations to anecdotal or sensational takes (see also Gencarella 2024)—and support one another in their collective quest for self-transformation.² Hof has a notable following on YouTube—his official channel currently has 2,94 million subscribers, compared with 3,5 million followers on Instagram and 0,99 million followers on Facebook—where individuals offer self-experimental testimonials detailing their journeys with Hof’s Method over specific durations and its effects on their overall well-being and various health conditions, ranging from rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes to a spectrum of autoimmune disorders and mental health issues.

Exemplarity and Contemporary Self-Spirituality

This article situates Wim Hof and his Method within the context of media-driven wellness celebrities, a notion akin to what Stefan Lawrence (2022) has termed “digital guru media.” It emphasizes how concepts of evidence and exemplarity are employed within this framework as mutually complementing factors—hence the term evidential exemplarity—while contextualizing the phenomenon within contemporary science-driven self-spirituality. Specifically, I ask how the two elements of evidence and exemplarity—traditionally viewed as distinct or even conflicting in scientific discourse—are integrated as performative acts in portrayals of the Wim Hof Method, as when isolated pieces of evidence are elevated into paradigmatic examples. This dynamic effectively blurs the boundaries between what counts as evidence in popular perception and the scientific realm.

Reflecting the current trends of seeking health management advice from online peer communities (Lewis 2006; Mager 2009) and the fusion of expertise with the logic of celebrity (Lewis 2010, 583), Hof falls squarely amidst an abundance of contemporary lifestyle influencers who present the self as a heroic project of actualization and incite their audiences to “take control” of their lives or, in Hof’s case, their autonomic somatic affects and responses (see also Lindfors 2021). Indeed, Hof’s brand combines recycled new spiritual tropes with a seemingly unwavering support for science, embodying a neurocentric variation of contemporary self-spirituality. By this term, I am referring to the Method’s emphasis on the role of the nervous system, particularly the voluntary regulation of physiological responses, in the pursuit of self-improvement and spiritual growth (for neurocentrism, see Vidal and Ortega 2017; for self-spirituality, see, e.g., Lynch 2007; Sointu & Woodhead 2008; Watts 2018). This ideology merges romanticized scientism with the individualist ideals of self-determination, authenticity, and autonomy (“natural well-being”), i.e., liberal humanist virtues that have increasingly become conduits for neoliberal subjectivation á la Foucault (see e.g., Maiese and Hanna 2019). In therapeutic contexts promoting self-realization as a path to well-being, these virtues offer a universal model for individuals to follow. This is also why Hof insists that you, his generalized interlocutor, perform seemingly scientific self-experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Method for yourself—while proving him right.

My analysis contributes to research on therapeutic wellness cultures by examining the Wim Hof Method as a case through which the dynamic interplay—rather than a simple dichotomy—between exemplification and evidence comes into view, at the intersection of alternative medicine, science, and popular media. In media representations, Wim Hof’s image is ambiguous, presenting him as a celebrity star with superhuman abilities and an approachable, relatable everyman. On the one hand, Hof serves as an exemplary role model, someone to be emulated and inspired by; on the other hand, he makes a conscious effort to bridge the gap between himself and his followers, highlighting ordinariness and universality while leveraging scientific evidence to substantiate his claims on a broader scale. This duality portrays Hof as remote in terms of his extraordinary bodily endurance and relatable in his approach. Such tension between paradigmatic exemplars and inductive examples has been identified as driving the concept of exemplarity through various combinations (e.g., Gelley 1995; Ferrara 2008; Eriksen et al. 2012; Højer and Bandak 2015; Noyes 2016; this issue). In the Wim Hof Method, this tension is harnessed to bring forth the Method’s most captivating promise, as reiterated in the opening of the YouTube documentary Becoming Superhuman with Wim Hof: “What if there is a world of untapped potential in all of us, just waiting to be released?”

Building on linguistic/semiotic anthropological perspectives on type-token distinctions and typification (Silverstein 2005; Sadre-Orafai 2020; MacLochlainn 2022), I perceive exemplarity as a social and communicative phenomenon implicitly conveyed through public performances and reflexively regimented by political, moral, and ideological frameworks.³ Echoing what Lauren Berlant (2011, 61) quips the “self-exemplarity of bourgeois universalism,” Scott MacLochlainn (2022, 8) aptly notes the inherent structures and inequalities associated with the construction and reliance on what is deemed generic (in the sense of replicable). Certain normatively unmarked or otherwise privileged individuals or groups within society hold the power to define and more easily embody what is considered universal and attainable, thereby perpetuating societal structures and hierarchies. Exemplarity is thus subject to regulation by relevant ideological frameworks, power relations, and moral economies. It necessitates ongoing metadiscursive regimentation that aligns individual actions, gestures, and expressions with the broader type they aim to embody.

Rather than being necessarily explicitly indicated, I highlight how exemplarity is often indexically conveyed and inferred through the uptake of such performances (see also MacLochlainn 2022, 11). Nicholas H. A. Evans (2023, 445) goes as far as to claim that exemplars have “no existence independent of the practices of emulation that surround them,” suggesting that exemplarity is a thoroughly relational phenomenon that relies on others recognizing its worth (see also Alasuutari 2018). Consequently, exemplarity operates on a spectrum rather than as a fixed attribute, and individuals like Wim Hof may shift their positions contextually from being a model (a type) at one moment to serving as a representative (a token of that type) at another—an oscillation that further bolsters their relatability.

Methodologically, this study employs a multi-sited approach by combining a media anthropological examination of the Wim Hof Method with participant observation at various sites linked to emerging cold exposure cultures—particularly within the Finnish context where the practice of winter swimming has existed as a folk tradition for several decades if not centuries—as well as interviews with three certified Wim Hof instructors. I began mapping the most popular YouTube documentaries related to Wim Hof by reviewing the content on Hof’s official channel and the curated palyist of his interviews and podcasts. My search was extended to include other popular YouTube videos on the topic and articles advertised in Facebook groups focused on the Wim Hof Method. The primary material consists of four of the most popular YouTube documentary films (Inside the Superhuman World of the Iceman, 2015; The Iceman Cometh, 2016; Becoming Superhuman with Iceman , 2019; BREATHE, 2022) and the reality TV series Freeze the Fear with Wim Hof (BBC One, 2022), in which eight British celebrities stayed with Hof at a camp set up in the Dolomites in Northern Italy to practice his Method and compete in challenges designed by him. As a complementary pool of material, I also refer to published literature on the Method, including Hof’s authoritative tome on the subject (Hof and Rosales 2012; Hof and de Jong 2016; Carney 2017; Hof 2020).

In examining diverse materials, my objective has been to discern common themes and viewpoints across different contexts, considering the communicative and social affordances of each medium, platform, and setting (e.g., Boellstorff et al. 2012). Given that the Wim Hof Method is inherently a bodily and affective practice—an “invitation to rethink the body” to borrow Ruth Barcan (2011, 214) on the somatic practices of alternative medicine—it poses distinctive challenges when subjected to conventional methods of textual and representational analysis (see Thorpe and Rhinehart 2010). To account for the subjective experiences and emotions associated with the visceral sense of “connection” to the body, nature, and environment, as articulated by many practitioners, I also draw on my personal experience of regularly engaging in cold exposure since the fall of 2019, providing an implicit point of reference.

I will begin by situating Wim Hof within the sphere of networked wellness influencers, whose appeal is premised on providing lifestyle guidance as well as emotional and health-related advice through a relatable and accessible persona (Abidin 2018). Subsequently, I will explore the connections of the Wim Hof Method with the evidence-based economy of the biomedical sciences, and also look into the convergence of popular imagination and scientific demonstrations, primarily exemplified by Wim Hof’s remarkable feats. Finally, I will focus on the more-than-human relationality promoted by the Method, providing insight into how bodily practices relate to various social, political, and environmental ecologies.

“ No ego – We go!”: Navigating Individualism and Self-Effacement

I am no superhero. I am no genetic freak. I’m not a guru, and I did not invent these techniques either. (Hof 2020, xxii)

Hof claims to have been exposing himself to cold for four decades, but it was not until the 2010s that the Wim Hof Method was patented as a product. During this period, his son, Enahm Hof, established Innerfire Inc., a family company focused on promoting Wim’s output. Since its trademarking, the Wim Hof Method has gained global popularity and spread from its origin in the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain to other regions, including North America and Nordic countries. Under Enahm’s leadership, Wim is reported to have given up on his sensational stunts and shifted his focus to collaborating with scientists, aiming to bolster the credibility of his Method (Carney 2017).

In general, the official media materials provided by Innerfire and Hof’s own platforms echo prevalent critiques within therapeutic wellness cultures, ranging from the familiar premise that modern society stifles individual authenticity to embracing an anti-cognitive stance encapsulated in phrases such as “We live in our minds”—suggesting a return to our senses, bodies, and spirits (see also Alter 2022). The Wim Hof Method is thus itself exemplary of an ideology of wellness cultures that rhetorical scholar Colleen Derkatch (2022) has characterized as valuing cultural connections with nature over chemicals, self-healing and mind-body balance over artificial interventions, self-discovery and self-determination over authoritative control, and health—understood in relation to self-improvement and cultivation of moral virtue—over illness.

The primary products offered by Innerfire consist of online courses that teach the basics of the Method. The Fundamentals course, available in five languages, is designed for beginners and includes 40 lectures, instructional videos, yoga classes, a documentary, and homework assignments. Another introductory-level foundational course is called “the classic,” and comprises a ten-week online course that gradually introduces cold exposure and breathwork, instructional videos, and supplementary materials. Additionally, Innerfire offers a free 25-minute mini-course, an advanced-level Power of the Mind course that focuses on enhancing the mind-body connection, books, music suitable for breathing exercises, and a free mobile application with paid features to facilitate Method practice and progress tracking. The company has also launched the Wim Hof Method Academy, a training program for instructors consisting of three modules. Graduates of this program become certified Wim Hof Method instructors and can independently offer courses in the Method. Instructors are located all around the world, with particular concentrations in Europe and North America. In terms of gender distribution, instructors are predominantly male-identified, especially in the European context.

In this context, Hof’s rise to fame can be largely attributed to the unique media ecosystem of the early 21st century, in conjunction with a societal landscape characterized by high precarity and a cultural milieu favorable to self-promotion and triumphant individualism (Khamis et al. 2016, 15). On the one hand, Hof capitalizes on this environment by cultivating an ethos of mutuality and informality by openly disclosing his daily habits and personal proclivities (see Raun 2018; Baker and Rojek 2020). For instance, Hof uses his personal YouTube series #AskWim to share glimpses into his private life. The series, consisting of short videos, features Wim responding to lifestyle questions (“Do you ever take hot showers?”), offering advice on relevant topics (“Tips for Quarantine”), and expressing his views on various subjects (“Iceman Wim Hof and Weed?”). That is, Hof leverages his lifestyle choices to exemplify an ideal way of living while acting as an advocate for his own Method. Documentary films like Becoming Superhuman with Iceman, BREATHE,or his reality show Freeze the Fear with Wim Hof are predicated on the idea of Wim appearing authentically himself – frequently featuring him at his private estate – and eschewing the creation of a contrived celebrity persona. A rhetorician with a knack for quotable slogans, including his self-effacing trademark: “No ego – We go!”, Hof is often portrayed engaging in playful activities like jamming on his guitar or showcasing minor displays of strength and agility, such as performing splits or lifting himself on one hand.

Alternatively, Hof is frequently dramatized while performing his feats, depicted as a self-contained individual capable of enduring extreme cold while immersed in profound self-awareness. His introduction in Freeze the Fear with Wim Hof underscores this juxtaposition of his unique individuality and relatable qualities. Wearing a colorful cloak reminiscent of Indigenous patterns and motifs, Hof first expresses his affection for the cold and belief in its potential to help people conquer their problems. He then lists remarkable feats and achievements that “physiologists and doctors” would have deemed impossible for humans, such as swimming under ice, running a half marathon in the snow without shoes, and ascending Mount Everest’s “Death Zone” in nothing but his shorts. A self-definition follows this through contrast: “People thought what I was doing was impossible. Yet, I was doing it! I am not a superhero, a guru, or anything like that. My name is Wim Hof – I don’t feel the cold, I feel its power.” In other words, while distinguishing himself from the stereotype of a guru, he is nevertheless an individual with a capital I, the doubly reiterated Wim Hof.

The popular portrayal of Wim Hof is thus potentially contradictory, balancing elements of liberal humanist individualism, if not ‘neoliberal’ aspiration and assertiveness, with characterological types of the yogi or the ‘wild man’ connected to nature. First, Hof emphasizes the power of the mind over the body, drawing from yogic traditions that prioritize mental discipline and self-control. This aspect finds support in psychological evidence demonstrating the influence of mindset on physiological responses (Crum et al. 2017). Second, Hof trades on the archetype of the wild man, echoing the recurring theme in Western culture of Indigenous people serving as spiritual leaders for non-Indigenous individuals. He is portrayed as someone in tune with nature, thriving in adverse natural environments without modern conveniences and advocating exposure to natural elements while incorporating techniques that stimulate the body’s innate responses. In this way, Hof’s approach recalls what folklorist Anthony Bak Buccitelli (2024) identifies as the appeal of “antimodern media,” tapping into a primitivist aesthetic that romanticizes a simpler, more elemental existence, often through vague allusions to distant, pre-modern pasts.⁴

In a departure from the guru stereotype Hof embraces the contemporary tenet of self-spirituality, advocating the rejection of exemplary authorities through a self-effacing gesture: “I’m not here to be an example for you, but instead to be the master within myself. Let thatbe...the example for others to emulate” (Hof 2020, 118) In essence, practitioners are encouraged to creatively incorporate the available techniques through the discourse of self-actualization and personal potential, the realization of which becomes a duty in the imperative to live one’s life authentically (Taylor 1994, 78; cited in Cronin 2000, 275; also, Sointu and Woodhead 2008).

Simultaneously, an important aspect of networked wellness cultures involves the curated performance of an exemplary life in social media. Consider dietary fads like “clean eating” (Nicholls and Gilchrist 2022) or the TikTok phenomenon “That Girl,” which encourages people to “become that girl”—someone who gets up early, meditates, journals, maintains a healthy diet, and succeeds in life in general. Such trends and the communities forming around them are based on collective cultivation of motivation, “positive vibes,” or “fitspiration” (Daudi 2022), which are instrumentally perceived as means to support the self-discipline of individual practitioners.

In what might be regarded as a somewhat quirky ecological practice, some Wim Hof Method practitioners, affectionately referred to as “Hoffers,” embrace similar group dynamics by promoting a broader cultural re-orientation to nature through individual cold acclimatization, engaging imaginative forms of cold exposure, like barefoot running or snow rolling, even stripping bare-chested in the winter.⁵ Subscribing to the belief that cold and other forms of “hormetic stressors”—heat, light, exercise, fasting, polyphenols, etc.—are our allies that assist us in increasing physical and mental resilience, the ethos (occasionally referred to as “biohacking”; see Lindfors 2024) is driven by an intuition of a reservoir of untapped bodily capacity (see also Easter 2021).⁶ Hoffers advocate for reconsidering human potential through spectacular exemplarity of gesture, demonstrating remarkable feats of endurance—“showing the world that we are all capable of doing more than what we had previously thought possible” (Hof and Rosales 2012, 56).

As highlighted by Baker and Rojek (2020), algorithmic steering on social media promotes a fixation with sensational and controversial content, with algorithms indiscriminately valuing engagement from followers, detractors, and indifferent onlookers, as all contribute to the platform’s aim of capitalizing on user engagement. In this regard, cold exposure provides an opportunity for practitioners to stage emotionally charged and difficult-to-fabricate spectacles designed to captivate the audience, harking back to the managed self-disclosure and heightened emotional display described by media scholar Laura Grindstaff (2002) as the “money shot.” In this context, the money shot is typically the climactic point of the exposure to an extreme environment, capturing the individual’s reaction, whether it is a gasp, shiver, or calm and gathered triumph over freezing cold water. This moment is typically the highlight of the content, designed to elicit awe, surprise, or admiration from the audience and encourage them to share, circulate, and discuss the content.⁷

Evidential Exemplarity and Popular Science Mediation

In this section, I will explore how Wim Hof’s case illuminates the dynamic interplay between exemplification and evidence, or evidential exemplarity, and the workings of an evidence-based economy within popular scientific media environments. Rather than evaluating its scientific basis or correspondence with ongoing debates of biomedical evidence per se, I examine Wim Hof’s utilization of scientific discourse in portraying his Method, exploring how evidence and exemplarity as concepts function in its popular representations. Scientific facts, especially of the medical kind, are revered as valuable commodities in popular discourse. As Sunder Rajan (2012) has pointed out, basic scientific knowledge is increasingly produced in corporate settings and can be more easily transformed into commodities. Rajan’s central question resonates within this evolving landscape: “What is a scientific fact and how does it operate as fact in a world that is increasingly market-oriented?”

To date, an increasing number of scientific studies are focusing on a range of physiological and psychological aspects associated with the Wim Hof Method or some of its specific techniques, encompassing case studies, randomized control trials, and observational trials (Buijze et al. 2019; Citherlet et al. 2021; Marko 2022; Zwaag et al. 2022). The earliest studies by Knox et al. (2012; 2014) suggested a positive impact on the autonomic nervous system and immune system, demonstrating that healthy individuals who underwent training in the Method could voluntarily regulate their innate immune response. A neuroimaging study by Muzik et al. (2018) utilizing fMRI and PET scans indicated that the Wim Hof Method activated brain regions linked to pain suppression (such as the periaqueductal gray area). In a proposition that Hof himself frequently underscores when discussing the Method’s benefits, the researchers suggested that “the WHM might allow practitioners to develop higher level of control over key components of the autonomous system,” with potential implications for treatments of various clinical disorders. However, a more recent systematic review evaluated the findings as showing a “promising” use of the Wim Hof Method in the inflammatory response category. Even so, it deemed the quality of the nine research papers covered inadequate for reliably evaluating most claims of effectiveness (Almahayni and Hammond 2024).

My goal is not on evaluating nor discrediting the growing body of scientific research on the physiological effects of the Wim Hof Method, for instance through scrutinizing the validity of evidence presented—in my estimation, suffice it to say, it appears preliminary at best, though I suspect the practice may serve various other significant functions, such as cultivating heightened bodily awareness or more-than-human relationality (see below; also, Ecks 2008; Lindfors and Kinnunen 2024). Instead, my interest lies in examining the evidence as a dynamic and performed concept and its relations with exemplarity and expertise, which Hof actively pursues. To paraphrase rhetorical scholar Jenny Rice (2020, 25–26), my focus is less on whether Hof’s arguments reference “real” evidence and more on gaining a nuanced understanding of what he aims to achieve by invoking evidence in the first place. Building on the insights of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Rice shifts the focus from the epistemology of evidence to its affective and performative aspects by asking, what is accomplished by invoking (scientific) evidence besides reinforcing the credibility of arguments?

An essential element in Hof’s story relates to his journey in convincing the skeptical scientific community. Despite initially being seen as a “freak of nature,” he wanted to demonstrate that anyone could learn his techniques and that all bodies possess the same capabilities, so he sought scientific validation. However, Hof’s claims extend bey-ond the commonly recognized capabilities of cold exposure, breathwork, and mindfulness to alter the body’s biochemical balance with potential benefits. For instance, he asserts the ability to consciously regulate blood flow into the intestines and control body temperature solely through willpower (Hof and Rosales 2012, 84).

Hof aspires to establish himself as a new “paradigm” for scientific practice through his efforts and feats, revealing an ambiguous relationship with scientific pursuits. On one hand, Hof frequently romanticizes science as a serious pursuit of timeless truths. In his authoritative book, Hof (2020, 32, 155) speaks of “loving science” and welcomes skeptics, as he believes they can serve to “polish the diamond of the truth.” On the other hand, his relationship with science appears ambivalent, to say the least. While he often cites scientific evidence to support his claims, he portrays himself as an alternative source of information outside the established “system” and its cadre of professional experts. This becomes evident when Hof describes how he is on the run with scientists. In particular, he positions himself ahead of the scientific community, suggesting that they have yet to catch up with his advancements by stating, “The science will have to catch up to us, but we’ll have all the evidence soon” (2020, 140).

The grand narrative of Wim Hof is centered on his discovery of his ability to consciously influence his autonomic nervous and immune systems—a feat he claims was widely considered impossible. This event is portrayed as a revelatory moment in an earlier book written by Justin Rosales. After gaining a deeper understanding of the physiological significance and mechanisms of his ability through collaboration with scientists, Hof discerned his calling to assist individuals in their battle against illness. He envisions that influencing the immune system could have an enormous impact on humanity’s fight against disease and unproblematically positions his own accomplishments as self-evidently referencing universally attainable goals: “If I can influence the immune system, everybody can; that is my goal. It could change how things work in terms of healthcare for people all around the world” (Hof and Rosales 2012, 86–87; 133–34, 293).

The act of accumulating and showcasing evidence constitutes a form of rhetorical argument, not only substantiating arguments but also providing its own affordances for persuasive communication. Rice (2020, 58) suggests that such adding up of evidence works through a dual reference, where the content of the utilized evidence serves as one reference, and the growing body of evidence under development (the “archives” of evidence in formation) serves as the other. However, rather than strictly adhering to the scientific method of validating previous findings, evidence can accumulate in a piecemeal fashion through disparate, incremental pieces that are selectively showcased to support a specific narrative. This pattern seems to hold true in Wim Hof’s case, where he seeks to amass scientific evidence to support his claims and, by doing so, to heighten his standing as a representative example of his Method and its general applicability. According to one of his first disciples, Justin Rosales, the understanding that scientific evidence supported Hof’s Method increased its perceived attainability (Hof and Rosales 2012, 102). Thus, scientific research is considered reassuring in confirming the Method’s concrete, measurable effects and its broader potential. Further still, Hof (2020, 159) suggests that the objective nature of scientific evidence deflects any suspicions of egotistical motives: “Doctrines and gurus are for those still battling with the ego, while science – the truth of things – has no use for ego. Solid scientific data isn’t speculative. It’s real whether you believe it or not.” In this rhetoric, the scientific process itself is romanticized, framed as an almost infallible mechanism of truth that operates independently of subjective bias or personal gain. Hof’s accumulation and public presentation of scientific evidence thus not only substantiates his claims but also serves as a persuasive rhetorical strategy, reaffirming the Method’s concrete effects, broader applications, and its seeming foundation in fundamental truth.

The relationship between exemplarity and evidence is traditionally perceived as complex and multifaceted within epistemology and the philosophy of science (Godfrey-Smith 2003). Anthropologists Højer and Bandak (2015; see also Hastrup 2004; Barry 2006; Engelke 2008) suggest that examples and evidence oppose each other. While examples are often seen as real-world distortions of the ideal truth sought by science, which relies on evidence, they play a crucial role in conviction, effect, performance, and persuasion. However, scientific discourse is not exempt from employing virtuous storytelling and generating monetary value (see Dumit 2012; Black 2021). Rather, the tension between exemplarity and evidence highlights the dynamic nature of knowledge production and presentation (see also Rice 2020, 8). Exemplary figures like Wim Hof, who offer a combination of personal experience and scientific evidence, are able to leverage their credibility to inspire and motivate followers by way of example while concurrently reinforcing the “felicity conditions” (Austin 1962) of their exemplary performances with evidence backed up by scientific authority.⁸ In this process, Hof selectively elevates individual scientific findings, framing them as exemplary cases that signify the broader applicability of his Method. The selective showcasing of these findings serves not only to substantiate his claims but also to heighten their status, transforming them into more than just pieces of evidence—they become paradigmatic examples of what is possible through the Method. At the same time, the focus may be more on creating a compelling narrative that offers a glimpse into potential outcomes and invites individuals to embrace their self-discovery rather than providing strict proof or accuracy of evidence. The following section explores this dynamic in greater detail.

Spectacular Demonstrations and Visceral Interconnections

As is evident in many popular documentaries tracing his journey, the Wim Hof Method leverages the spectacle of the human body to corporeally showcase the hidden capacities believed to reside in each of us. Hof (2020, 149–50) presents himself as a “guinea pig of sorts,” having subjected his Method to various extreme tests. These trials include arduous physical challenges—some of which seem to bear only a tangential relationship to the Method—that have earned him a place in the Guinness World Records, such as climbing Mount Everest in shorts, swimming under ice, hanging by a single finger, sitting in a box filled with ice for almost two hours, and running a marathon in a desert without drinking water. In this section, I will continue exploring how the Method’s association with affectively striking corporeal demonstrations serves as a form of evidential validation, effectively blurring the boundaries between what is considered evidence in popular perception and the scientific realm while also shedding light on other forms of evidence and functions associated with it.

Conventionally, demonstrating scientific facts is crucial in establishing their validity and reliability, as they must be capable of being repeatedly observed and verified. According to medical anthropologist Joseph Dumit (2012), science operates as an authoritative discourse sustained and enacted through repeated performances, which he refers to as scientific demonstrations. These demonstrations both materialize and exemplify scientific facts, underscoring the entanglement of exemplarity, evidence, and expertise in the scientific process. However, when scientific knowledge is made tangible through a living body—when the scientific demonstration becomes a spectacle of embodiment, as in the public stunts of Wim Hof that blur the lines between science and spectacle (e.g., TEDxAmsterdam 2010)—science is imbued with a sensorial and emotional impact that goes beyond mere cognitive understanding and appears to speak to us in a bodily and affective manner.

As a “ventriloquist” of science who seemingly brings scientific knowledge to life in a multisensory experience, Hof present himself as both the embodiment of evidence-based science and the evidence for his Method. However, while Hof’s spectacular performances are frequently embedded in scientific-seeming contexts—such as being wired to monitors or breaking records under observation—what they actually show is not scientific fact or causality, but personal capacity and embodied discipline. They function as ostensive demonstrations (Tolbert and Gramigna 2024) or, in linguistic/semiotic anthropological terms, as indexical icons (Gal and Irvine 2019), of bodily possibility, visually and affectively staging the physiological promises of his Method through spectacular acts of self-exposure.⁹ This staging, amplified by biomedical and media framings, cloaks performance in the aura of science without directly producing scientific knowledge.

In line with Woolgar and Cooper’s (1999) argument that even examples that are considered “wrong” can still be effective in the production of knowledge within scholarly communities, successfully refuting an example doesn’t necessarily discredit the broader point it illustrates, as the overall narrative to which it belongs remains valid. In their words: “Such stories do not become exemplary simply as a result of their referential adequacy, or indeed of any inherent property. Their status is the upshot of their usage rather than the result of their internal qualities” (1999, 438). In a similar vein, whether the physiological or psychological “reasons” behind Wim Hof’s feats align precisely with his explanations may not be the central issue. His feats become exemplary not solely based on the accuracy of the scientific explanations behind them but because of their practical achievements and the fact that they serve as powerful demonstrations of human potential, inspiring others to action. What holds significance is that he accomplishes these feats, underscoring the notion that one can be right for the wrong reasons (see also Rekdal 2014).

Along with alternative therapies more generally (Gale 2014), the Wim Hof Method appears to mobilize a distinctive form of evidence rooted in personal experience and social and environmental relationality. According to Barry (2006, 2655), the effectiveness of such therapies encompasses more than just relief from symptoms, including changes in beliefs about health, healing, and disease, gaining meaning from illness experiences within one’s life story, transforming bodily experiences and one’s view of the body-self, and establishing a powerful dialectic relationship with the therapist or significant others.¹⁰ More than this, in the context of the Wim Hof Method and cold exposure, healing is closely tied to a relational ontology that prioritizes visceral interconnections with more-than-human, environmental, and even cosmological agencies and elements (see also Nätynki et al., 2023). In the remainder of this section, I will touch upon cold exposure as a relational affective practice to explore an environmental ideology inherent to the Wim Hof Method.

Therapeutic cold exposure, like the Wim Hof Method, serves as a practice that underscores the material interconnectedness and interchange between humans and the non-human element of water, ideally resulting in novel expressions of selfhood through temporarily dissolving the figure/ground relation between the human and the environment (Alaimo 2018, 435; also, Lindfors 2021). Far from “conquering” the cold, Wim Hof Method practitioners reframe cold water as an environment conducive to developing skills of bodily receptivity and affective responsiveness—fostering an attitude of “active passivity” and openness to the influences of the world, where the human body is merely a site traversed by more-than-human agencies. Cold water is not “fought against”; its icy touch, on the contrary, is embraced, allowing individuals to observe their physical and psychological reactions and boundaries without judgment. This approach aims to establish a resonant relationship with the world through mimetic adaption rather than attempting to master it (to borrow Rosa’s (2019) terms), as frequently described by practitioners in terms of newfound nature connection. Such willingness to embrace passivity, responsivity, and potential vulnerability may also contrast with traditional forms of masculine somatic self-expression, offering experiential pathways to transcend them. (See also Lindfors and Kinnunen 2023, 58–59.)

In this context, the Wim Hof Method, akin to many alternative therapies (Barcan 2011, 213–18), strives to create sensory-based practices to rethink the body’s relationship with the world, reminiscent of how anthropologist Joseph S. Alter (2014; also, 2022) defines “viscerality” as the sensory interaction between the body and the environment that takes on both personal and social significance based on the intensity of an experience—“a strong sensual aesthetic of embodied connectedness” (see also Rosa 2019, 269–80). This entanglement and grounding in the more-than-human world is perceived to promote healing in itself and foster a sense of community among those who share similar experiences.

The tension within this narrative lies in Hof’s advocation for visceral interconnections with the more-than-human world while implicitly exerting control over his own seemingly uncontrollable bodily nature through assertions of masculine self-reliance and mastery. On the one hand, he instrumentally portrays the cold as a means to regulate his innate affective responses. He frequently frames the cold as a reflective “mirror” into our bodies and selves during stressful situations, particularly focusing on the physiological “fight-or-flight” reaction to a perceived harmful event or threat (e.g., Hof 2020). On the other hand, the Method promotes a broader ideology of aligning with the more-than-human environment, emphasizing well-being through affective relationality, interdependence, and “transcorporeality” (Alaimo 2018). This duality in Hof’s narrative may create an unresolved dynamic between somatic self-mastery and ecological reorientation.

Conclusion

In highlighting the pivotal role of the nervous system in one’s quest for self-discovery and well-being, the Wim Hof Method aligns with larger trends in contemporary spirituality that focus on self-transformation through somatic practices and technologies targeting the nervous system and, more broadly, with the growing interest in mind-body practices that are supported by scientific evidence. Such emphasis on science-driven somatic self-regulation is reflected in the media portrayal of the Wim Hof Method, where two complementary representations of this therapeutic technique emerge. One emphasizes its scientific validation—however preliminary and indefinite—as a contemporary tool for “hacking” our post-industrial corporeal condition. Simultaneously, the other portrays it as a natural or even antimodern form of bodily self-actualization. This intertwining suggests a dual effort to naturalize science as the unquestioned epistemic authority in the globalized society and scientifically legitimize “naturalness”—whether in the form of nature cures or traditional gender roles that are increasingly being integrated into self-improvement practices, not least within masculinist subcultures. These trajectories warrant critical examination, especially in light of their implicit association within the Wim Hof Method with an “alternative” to the established system of professional expertise.

Exemplification and evidence work in tandem within this mediatized framework, with references to scientific evidence reinforcing the felicity conditions of Wim Hof’s exemplary demonstrations, or by elevating singular scientific findings into paradigmatic examples—a move that further blurs the line between empirical substantiation and affective persuasion. Such evidential exemplarity not only contributes to the widespread recognition of the Wim Hof Method within social media contexts but also underscores the value of attention and engagement as highly valued currencies in this realm. However, the convergence of scientific validation with spectacular exemplarity prevalent in the contemporary media ecosystem raises important questions about the commodification of self-enhancement techniques—and the potential consequences of reducing complex therapeutic practices to marketable products within environments that promote identity-based group-dynamics and vernacular authorities.

As the Wim Hof Method continues to gain popularity, it is crucial to critically examine the implications of its unproblematized reliance on scientific validation for broader wellness cultures. For one, critics suspect that the recent surge in modes of science-driven self-enhancement is accompanied by a disinvestment in broader social transformation and a reluctance to envision alternative, more progressive politics (e.g., Neves 2022; cf. Scott 1999, 143; Kemppainen and Salmenniemi 2025). Moreover, this trend often overlooks the inherent contestation and debate within scientific discourse, portraying scientific findings as unquestionable truths and obscuring the nuanced understanding of science, its temporalities, and its role in societal progress. In conjunction with a significant reliance on spectacular exemplarity common in media environments, such reduction or romanticizing of science increasingly aligns with the principles of commodities and corporate interests, potentially compromising the empowering message—of heightened bodily awareness and responsibility, more-than-human relationality, etc.—or otherwise valid cultural critique inherent to therapeutic modalities like the Wim Hof Method.

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the Academy of Finland (project number: 331204).