The following is what I wrote to the editor responding to the article... But as expected, it never got published in the readers' letters section...
Reading such an article that claims that there is science (if any) behind such meaningless religious rituals, demeans all the knowledge of science gathered by eminent scientists over the centuries. Let's take the instances from the article at hand.
Prof Geetha mentions that there is a logic to all this, which is getting lost. Of course there must have been some logic to it when it was initially conceived centuries ago. That logic might or might not be scientific at all. But in my opinion, since the original logic is indeed lost, we are perhaps trying to attach some false logic to them today based on some half-baked pseudo-scientific knowledge of the individuals. Speaking, for instance, about the dung lining near the threshold; author mentions that it produces methane in the presence of sunlight and forms a thin film preventing the entry of bacterial pathogens. Nothing can be further from scientific truth, which is, the methane produced out of the dung is what gives it the pungent smell and it is a gas much lighter than air. So, as soon as it is generated, it immediately rises up in the air and reaches the upper atmosphere, in turn contributing greatly to the global warming phenomenon. Moreover this gas is much more harmful to the human beings than any bacterial pathogens. Had it been useful in preventing bacteria, don't you think cow dung would be the most hygienic substance to eat?
Coming to the concept of cooking rice; author mentions that "Cooking rice under the morning sun helps absorb Vitamin D". From the statement it's not clear as to whom does it help. Does it mean the rice absorbs Vitamin D, or does it mean the person who eats that rice absorbs Vitamin D? Whichever be the meaning, science contradicts with it. Vitamin D is a substance that can be present ONLY in animal flesh. It's generated out of cholesterol within our body and cannot be supplied from any vegetative food we eat. So there is no relation of the rice, no matter how and where it is cooked, and absorption of Vitamin D. Rather cooking the rice outside the house attracts more dust and aerial microbes which are more likely to harm ones health that benefit it anyway.
Now the next ritual of making the cow cross the small fire made of dry hay; author mentions that it reduces the chances of some viral infections that are more likely to breed during this season. Once again looking at real science, can you actually believe that exposing an animal to a small fire three times for a fraction of seconds each time can have any effect on the (sometimes) deadly viruses which actually lurk much deeper within the animal? Moreover if camphor is even remotely antiviral, as claimed by the author, then don't you think it'd be much more beneficial to make the animal eat it than performing an arthi, the fumes of which the animal would not even like to inhale?
Finally, out of curiosity, may I know the subject of specialization of Prof Geetha?
