They're fighting, they're fighting, this is a real tough nut to crack!! There won't be anything clean inside the Great Firewall; the problem lies in this protective umbrella! Qiqi Papa TALK 'Refreshing 807' 20261023
In this episode, host Qiqi has gathered and reported on multiple incidents of serious alleged data falsification in papers published in top-tier journals by researchers and university staff—including deans and winners of the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars from institutions such as Peking University, Central South University, Tongji University, East China Normal University, and Beihang University. The host detailedly presents identical or loophole-ridden experimental data in various papers, while exploring the far-reaching negative impacts of academic fraud on youth employment, the disconnect between industry and academia, and the broader scientific ecosystem.
Video Link:
Full Text:
Hello, hi everyone, welcome to Qiqi Baba, I'm Qiqi. There's something that happened before that I actually haven't told you all about—it was a heartily fought battle. I feel that although it's also a fight against fraud, this anti-fraud is quite special. It's not about environmental protection or food safety, but a theme that no one has ever done before, how should I put it? The theme is Student Geng's wild reporting and public exposure of academic fraud issues in various universities. To be honest, after he made it public, he probably ran into quite a lot of trouble.
[Video Clip] Then I'll just be straightforward with you! Hey, regarding that Shanghai University matter, is there any room for discussion?
[Video Clip] No. That has nothing to do with me! That matter is no longer under my control.
[Video Clip] Yes, it's just right now, if it's about that video, the Douyin video, and videos on other platforms, whether there's room to maneuver depends on what you mean, because I'm just a middleman.
[Video Clip] Ah, well.
[Video Clip] On this side's matter, but I can take charge of things here and help you get things settled here smoothly, there's no problem at all. Settled on which side?
[Video Clip] Um, settled on which side?
[Video Clip] I'll just help you handle the Shanghai University side smoothly, depending on what needs you have on your end.
[Video Clip] I don't have any, I didn't have any needs in the first place. Why would you think I have any needs regarding this matter? I have no needs.
[Video Clip] Um, isn't it that if you take down those videos and such, you might not need to edit?
[Video Clip] He doesn't need money.
[Video Clip] OK, alright then. If you have any thoughts, feel free to call me anytime. Why don't you introduce yourself, who are you? Tell me. Let's not make things so explicit. Anyway, whatever needs you have, tell me, and I'll get it done, it's that simple. Alright, a threat, huh? OK.
[Video Clip] No, university.
[Video Clip] Mm.
[Video Clip] Won't do, won't do. Speaking of this point, you just...
[Video Clip] Chatting with you. Hold on.
[Video Clip] I...
[Video Clip] Not a single word was a threat, I'm telling you.
[Video Clip] None of your words were, did you say none of them were? But I have this call recorded, you know?
[Video Clip] Ah, that's no problem. First of all, I posed no threat to you at all.
[Video Clip] I was just...
[Video Clip] conveyed the other party's thoughts to you very bluntly, OK, no problem, with no threats whatsoever.
[Video Clip] Yeah.
[Video Clip] Alright. So is there any room for discussion?
[Video Clip] If you at.
[Video Clip] think, if you ever think there is room, just let me know anytime. And if you want to record the call or anything, that is completely fine.
[Video Clip] Right, just now.
[Video Clip] You might have had a slight misunderstanding, or perhaps my way of speaking was a bit impatient.
[Video Clip] You are... are you going through normal channels? You are... that's not just a little impatient!
[Video Clip] What are your thoughts?
[Video Clip] I have no thoughts, I just want to know who you are.
[Video Clip] Anyway, I'm a reliable person, and I just wanted to.
[Video Clip] Out in the world, usually... anyone who calls themselves reliable is unreliable.
[Video Clip] Ah.
[Video Clip] How do you prove it? Tell me.
[Video Clip] Well, I really cannot prove it.
[Video Clip] Doesn't that settle it then?
[Video Clip] Ah.
[Video Clip] Tell me, what are your demands?
[Video Clip] No demands, it's just that the other party wanted me to ask what demands you have on your side? Because if you have no demands, I really just.
[Video Clip] Yeah.
[Video Clip] You also said just now that matters are no longer within your control.
[Video Clip] Go on, you know about this too. What am I supposed to do?
[Video Clip] Nothing more than that the other side wants to play it down first, and then ultimately wait for the school's response. Oh, want to play it down, huh? Since the school is already involved in this matter, there will definitely be an outcome in the end.
[Video Clip] Then what is the point of you playing it down? Tell me, what can you do once it's played down? What is the point of you asking me to delete the video? I didn't say that, I didn't say asking you to delete the video, then I'll just delete it. You didn't say so, so I won't delete it.
[Video Clip] We didn't say that, right, we never said anything about deleting the video. OK.
[Video Clip] Yeah.
Being featured by Xinhua News Agency, and twice at that, so let me show off a bit, haha. It feels like a kid craving recognition suddenly getting praised by their parents. When the authorities give you face, you'd better accept it. So let me talk about something that happened last night. A PhD student from Peking University sent me an image in the middle of the night. Sadly, if you don't do Western Blots, you won't see how hilarious this image is. Anyway, I laughed all night and shared it with classmates in the same major to smirk at together. The paper is this article from a Nature sub-journal; the authors are a dean, a Changjiang Scholar, and a candidate academician. This figure itself is the raw data uploaded by the author, so please don't go asking the author for raw data, there's no need, this IS the raw data. Equally hilarious is this other one. Was this drawn with a paintbrush tool? If you're going to Photoshop it, at least Photoshop it properly for me! Everyone can download it here and take it out for a laugh whenever you're in a bad mood. Then reflect on why you didn't publish that figure—was it a lack of technique? Or a lack of guts? Could your Photoshop skills possibly be worse than those of the dean's research group? The worse their skills, the more confident they are.
Targeting top students—that's the gap between you and them. I also accidentally glanced at Supplementary Data 6, which is my favorite type of data. The latter halves of these numbers are basically identical, but the first halves are not. Another spot in Extended Data 6 has the same issue, as does Extended Figure 1. There are many more issues that I won't list one by one. Another crystallization from Central South University shares the same hobby. In a Nature sub-journal, the author pasted the data from Figure 5 into the data table of Supplementary Figure 6, then tweaked the digits before the decimal point while leaving the digits after the decimal point virtually untouched. The author could clearly have fabricated an entirely new number, but he didn't; he only changed the first few digits. Those digits at the end were simply too long, and he really didn't have the energy left to alter them. It is evident that academic fraud is physically exhausting work. Even today, with the rapid development of random number generation, there are still fraudsters who insist on using traditional handicraft methods of fraud. This demonstrates the perseverance of the older generation of fraudsters—truly admirable. Take a look at the representative masterwork of Tongji University's crystallization in a Nature sub-journal: everyone, come see why the raw data is so colorful! The identical numbers I marked.
...used the same colors, to the point where there weren't even enough variety of colors left. I thought to myself: if I'm running out of colors here, could the author have run out of numbers? It's totally possible. Look, not just one table—many tables faced this dilemma of not having enough numbers to go around. Yet the fraudster still, with his far from exquisite faking skills, presented us with a paper in a Nature sister journal, Nature Communications, abbreviated as NC—in parentheses, definitely not standing for "brain-dead" (naocan). Also facing the dilemma of running out of numbers was the "cream of the crop" from East China Normal University. In Figure 5 of this Nature sister journal paper, there were a total of 350 data points, but only 179 unique numbers; the rest relied entirely on repeating these 179 numbers. So we can see a massive amount of data being duplicated. You can imagine what a harsh "chokehold" of numbers the author endured while writing this paper. This chokehold of numbers is also reflected in Supplementary Figure 5E of the paper. Running out of numbers, the author could only copy the row of data from above to the below, and then slightly tweak a few numbers. As everyone knows, changing a few numbers is extremely...
...so it is quite understandable that the fraudster didn't change them all. These are all the ironclad fraudulent papers I have gathered for now, and I have made them all public. Because I endured a lot of criticism before: when I published these papers, some said I was latching onto the clout of Distinguished Young Scholars; when I didn't publish them, some said I had been bought off by the Distinguished Young Scholars! I genuinely want to say: why don't you two groups just have a brawl! I even suspect these two groups are actually the same people. Now I've made everything public.
At present, the ones I consider ironclad fraud are these few papers. There are others where I am not 100% certain. For instance, former Dean Wang—hasn't the dean been removed from his post? So he is a former dean. One of his Nature papers has been confirmed as fraudulent, while another Nature paper also has some data that looks off, such as duplicated data points here. But if I raise a question, the other side will surely claim it's an oversight, and I have no way to prove it definitely wasn't an oversight. Following the principle of the burden of proof resting on the claimant, my reporting this would actually be meaningless. But the previous ones are all ironclad proof of fraud, leaving no room for excuses. I am only making this evidence public for you all to see, but I didn't go through official reporting channels. For one thing, my family wouldn't let me; whether netizens choose to report it or not is beyond my control. On the other hand, I don't have much confidence in the universities. Except for Tongji University, the other universities have dragged their feet and not published their findings. Actually, if there were truly zero tolerance, it would have been dealt with long ago. For certain individuals, they just wait for the public attention to fade—giving it the cold treatment. The cold treatment can minimize the impact on future awards and honorary titles. I might as well say it bluntly: I know some of these "creams of the crop" want to run for academician.
However, the list of candidates for academician selection is made public a few months beforehand. If you don't resolve this matter properly now, it will definitely blow up by then, I can guarantee that. And dealing with it then will surely be far more troublesome. As for me, for now I've only investigated less than a tenth of the representative papers by these Distinguished Young Scholars and Changjiang Scholars. Finding so many problems in less than a tenth shows that the issue here is already exceedingly severe. To be honest, I didn't expect it to be this severe either. This morning a friend texted me saying that an editor at the main journal of Nature raised questions about a paper. An editor raising doubts means the problem is massive, to the point where the editor couldn't stand it anymore. Although several authors on this paper are Chinese, I checked the funding and it was entirely funded by the United States, so this is a purely American paper. In fact, academic fraud in the United States is just as severe. Countries around the world all want a clean academic environment for themselves, because it directly impacts technological development, which in turn affects the great power competition. I believe that anyone who finds they have an opportunity to influence this process,
no matter how small that influence may be, would join in without hesitation. As for me personally, I just happen to have such a platform, and I just happen to have the time to speak up. So recently, if your university has been strictly auditing data problems and adding to the workload of students, I ask for the students' understanding and forgiveness. I will arrange some other matters going forward, and we will talk more in the next video. Everyone, please don't think this has nothing to do with you. Have you ever complained about how hard it is to find a job? Have you ever complained about low wages? Have you ever thought about why all of this is happening? Have you ever thought that all of this is connected to academic fraud? Industry, academia, and research are supposed to be integrated and reinforce one another. But in certain industries in real life, there is indeed a severe disconnect between industry, academia, and research. So why is there so much academic fraud? How could industry, academia, and research not be disconnected? Once disconnected, there are fewer new companies, fewer jobs, salaries can't rise, and the industry fails to develop well. So it's not just graduate students who are trapped in academic fraud; you and I are both deeply affected by this.
This...
This matter is heinous. The severity exceeds everything before. Of course, I hope everyone can make their own judgments rather than just listening to me. The incident began when netizens questioned a paper published in a Nature sub-journal—a collaboration between Tongji University and Beihang University—for data fabrication. The data in Figure 2e and Figure 7e were identical down to five decimal places, matching one by one. This is blatant falsification. Dean Wang of Tongji, Dean Chen of Nankai, and two associate deans at Sun Yat-sen University were all dismissed for precisely this kind of thing. Such evidence is indisputable, ironclad proof. But Dean Sun of Tongji disagreed and came forward in person to respond. Let's take a look at his brilliant performance. First, Dean Sun asserted that those raising questions did not understand the experimental data or the experimental procedures, completely dismissing the netizens' concerns. Then he presented his evidence. He said that although the raw data displayed on the paper's official website went to six decimal places—just as the questioners showed—the actual measurements in their laboratory retained nine decimal places, and the last few digits were not duplicates; it was merely a coincidence that they weren't displayed. It should be noted that the source of this raw data is unclear; nobody knows which obscure corner Dean Sun dug it up from, but it certainly isn't on the paper's official site. Dean Wang clearly failed to learn this trick back then. Two months ago, if Dean Wang had known this move when netizens accused his paper of using simple addition and subtraction fit for a kindergarten class, he too could have claimed to have an even more original dataset tucked in his pants pocket—one that retained
ten decimal places, where all the addition and subtraction patterns you saw did not exist in those hidden numbers. Yay, I didn't fake anything! But what is the saving grace here? Dean Sun admitted with his own mouth that the data currently shown on the paper's official website is accurate, just not as comprehensive as what he has in his pocket. Fine, let's see if this genuine data could have naturally occurred in a laboratory. When we place all the experimental data of the same type from this paper together, it is obvious that the numbers after the decimal point are randomly distributed. Except for these two sets of data highlighted in red, no other data show any noticeable correlation. Now let's calculate the probability of these two red-highlighted datasets being so similar. The probability of one set of numbers matching another identically down to five decimal places is 1 in 100,000. The probability of six consecutive sets matching like this is 1 in 100,000 multiplied six times over. What a coincidence that Dean Sun happened to hit these odds! The universe is so vast, and there is only one Dean Sun—why shouldn't he be matched with a one-of-a-kind dataset in the universe? If you ask me, it was completely unnecessary for Dean Sun to claim he had an even more original dataset. No need. Just come right out and say, 'This is what the original data looks like; take it or leave it.' That would be truly domineering. Whether I believe Dean Sun's explanation doesn't matter; whether netizens believe it is somewhat important. What matters most is whether the regulatory authorities believe it. The issue with Dean Sun's data is not inherently atrocious, and the fabricated data isn't huge in volume; admitting a mistake wouldn't have been that big a deal. But his current
attitude is something I cannot accept. If Dean Sun's explanation holds up, the term 'academic fraud' will cease to exist worldwide, because any fabrication could be justified with this logic. That is why we must single out Dean Sun's case and address it thoroughly and clearly. I utterly reject Dean Sun's so-called explanation as it stands. Of course, I am also willing to hear further explanations from Dean Sun. I also hope netizens will make their own judgments. This matter regarding Dean Sun must be clarified. Furthermore, for an incident of such an egregious nature, if fraud is confirmed, I suggest that simply retracting the paper shouldn't be the end of it. Many of you have worked real jobs. If you take a client's money, squander it, and fail to deliver the work, will the client let you off the hook? Is admitting your mistake to the client enough? Is quitting your job enough? You have to pay compensation. The experimental data in this paper is confirmed to be fabricated, but the money you spent was real. I suggest the authors pay out of their own pockets to reimburse the wasted funds. Isn't that fair? It's only right and natural. In the real world, the client would even demand a fine from you. If you refuse to cooperate with the client's investigation, the fine would be even heavier. I recommend that everyone learn these various data-falsification techniques; in the future, when reviewing papers written by top figures in your field, you might just find them useful. A few days ago, a student was reprimanded by his advisor for progressing too slowly. 'Look at the research group next door—they publish papers so fast and in such large numbers!' So that student checked the raw data of the group next door and discovered...
The secret to their fast paper publishing is fabrication. Ever since then, his advisor never rushed him to do experiments again, and never again talked about how great the research group next door was. Resisting academic fabrication requires the joint efforts of the vast student body. My individual strength is too small; once many people master this technology, those who fabricate academic work will feel a sense of dread, at least not daring to act recklessly. Even if he goes to fabricate data, he will feel uneasy, worrying about when our detection methods will be upgraded again, causing him to toss and turn and unable to sleep. This is the deterrent effect. Everyone should not think that this matter has nothing to do with you. Have you ever complained about the difficulty of finding a job? Have you ever complained about low wages? Have you ever thought about why all this is? Have you ever thought about whether all this is related to academic fabrication? Industry, academia, and research were originally supposed to be connected together and promote each other. But certain industries in real life indeed suffer from serious detachment between industry, academia, and research. So why is there so much academic fabrication? Can the connection between industry, academia, and research not be severed? Once severed, new companies will be fewer, job positions will be fewer, wages cannot rise, and industry development will not be good either. Therefore, it is not just graduate students who are trapped in academic fabrication; you and I are both deeply affected by this matter.
March 18. A fight has broken out, a fight has broken out, this is a truly tough bone! Nothing inside the Great Firewall will be clean, the problem lies in this protective umbrella! Qi Qi Ba Ba TALK "Refreshing Brain 807" 20261023
Today. A vice dean and distinguished young scholar at Beihang University published his first Nature paper in his life in 2025, but I am very sorry, the raw data was fabricated, and the fabrication is very serious with conclusive evidence, displayed as follows. In Figure 3D data, the first decimal place should normally be randomly distributed, but the 38 pairs of data highlighted in yellow, each pair's first decimal place and units digit are completely identical; this cannot possibly be data genuinely generated in a laboratory. Everyone can see that other parallel groups do not have obvious data relationships. The same problem also appears in the data of Figure 3C, where all marked data correspond vertically, and everything after the decimal point is completely identical. The data highlighted in yellow not only have identical numbers after the decimal point, but the numbers before the decimal point also differ by only one digit. The only reasonable explanation for the causes of the above two sets of problematic data is that the author copied and pasted and then manually modified them, but the modification was not thorough. Previously dismissed deans and vice deans also had the same problems, but I am not sure what kind of result this report will have. Actually, I suggest everyone adopt a calm mindset to look at this matter.
We just need to do what we can do. As for whether the subsequent investigation is fair and whether the handling is fair, that is not within our control, so we do not worry about this either. I usually adopt this mindset to do things, so the sense of frustration I encounter is even less. There are even worse problems; the Figure 5h data is very abstract, and the author, worried that I wouldn't see the fabrication, thoughtfully showed me first-grade elementary school addition and subtraction. As expected of a doctor, addition and subtraction accurate to two decimal places can be calculated so clearly. With such neat addition and subtraction, I never expected someone would check so carefully, right? The data of Figure 25G have an obvious addition and subtraction relationship between the upper and lower rows, but this is simpler than the first-grade elementary school addition and subtraction from before, only reaching the level of senior kindergarten. These low-level student fabrication behaviors are truly smearing the academic fabrication industry. When outsiders look at it, what do they think is wrong with you guys? Are all of you who fabricate academic work idiots? Not even knowing random number generators, not knowing how to use them, and just sticking to ancient handicraft fabrication, it simply smearing the academic fabrication industry. Seniors in academic fabrication strongly condemn this, suggesting expulsion from the scientific research circle so there will never be a chance to fabricate academic work again. Beihang has replied via email confirming the investigation, and a higher-level management department also confirmed by phone that they will intervene in the investigation.
During my school days, I often heard good news about Deputy Dean Chang's research group publishing top papers, and my classmates and I were all very curious about what their scientific research secret was. Now it is deciphered; actually, according to my many years of experience, everyone is in the same platform, and you cannot see any special skills on him. But his papers are published much better than others, abnormally strong. Generally, such people are worth investigating. I am not saying they all have problems, I am saying they are worth investigating. When regulatory capacity is limited, the management capacity of these high-budget research groups should be prioritized; if you still treat everyone equally, then no one can be managed well. I didn't say others' management capacity is insufficient, I said my management capacity is insufficient, so I only investigate deans and distinguished young scholars.
There are always people in scientific research management positions who have almost no ability to manage research. They cannot even guarantee the authenticity of the data in their own research groups, yet they are managing others? If you don't have the ability to manage, then step down; no one is holding a knife to your throat forcing you to manage, right? We have always been in a state of talent surplus, with more radishes than holes. Precisely because there are more radishes than holes, I believe the university should impose heavier penalties to remind all supervisors that they must be responsible for their experimental results. Moreover, the more funding you receive, the better you should manage your research group. I have spent many years in the scientific research circle, and I know that some deans and vice deans are too lazy to manage the data of their own research groups because fabricated data allows for faster and better paper publication, so they are willing to turn a blind eye. Therefore, the purpose of heavy punishment is to warn others that turning a blind eye will not work. Especially for those in leadership positions who have received a lot of funding, if you have higher scientific research pursuits, you must manage the data of your research group well. If you cannot manage it well, you are burying a landmine for yourself. Furthermore, collective supervision by students can make the academic environment better. Although it cannot completely solve the problem, it at least has a positive effect.
There are many opponents who believe that since this matter cannot completely solve the problem, we should not do it. I think people who hold this view are generally unsuccessful in real life. Between completely solving the problem and doing nothing at all, there are actually many meaningful things we can do. I also think it is very reasonable that the authors should pay out of their own pockets to cover the cost of the experiments that were confirmed to be fabricated. If they don't have the money to pay, they can go to prison to earn it. Recently, the dismissal of deans and vice deans is usually accompanied by the firing of a young person, who is the first author of the paper. They used this fabricated paper to stay at the university to teach, but the number of spots for staying at the university is very small each year, almost one in a hundred. The person who stayed by fabricating data caused irreversible, lifelong harm to another person who worked diligently and should have stayed. After firing the student who fabricated the data, the university will not go back to contact the student who should have stayed. Everyone can understand this pain if they put themselves in their shoes. It is similar to someone cheating in the gaokao and stealing your admission spot at Tsinghua or Peking University.
We were investigating that paper by Wang Jieqing from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, trying to find ironclad evidence to prove beyond doubt that this paper must be fabricated. As a result, Wang Jieqing himself admitted to the fabrication, which caught me off guard, and I suddenly didn't know what to do. Usually, we point out the problem, and the other party either plays dead and says nothing, or is stubborn to the end, just like Qu Jieqing, who is stubborn to the end. But Wang Jieqing is different; his attitude is extremely sincere. To say something from the bottom of my heart, Wang Jieqing is much better than Qu Jieqing. Just because he dared to admit that his research group's paper was fabricated, Wang Jieqing is better than ten Qu Jieqings. Appreciation is appreciation, but we still have to follow the necessary procedures. Report it to the higher authorities, and then let it be handled as it should be. That paper is a large-scale paper, and each one has spent a lot of the country's scientific research funding. The authors of the paper will also benefit a lot from this Nature paper. Now that the paper is fabricated, the authors should bear the corresponding responsibility; this is only natural.
the corresponding author of this fabricated paper, Wang Jieqing, said that the fabricated data was done by the first author, Wang. Wang has not refuted this for the time being. If he continues not to refute it, it is equivalent to tacit admission. Of course, I personally hold the mentality of watching the fun without fearing the chaos, and I actually hope that Wang will come out to refute it, because there are really some 'Jieqings' who are very excessive. I have reported some 'Jieqings' before who told students, 'You are too serious about data; you won't be able to compete with others.' There are really supervisors who say such things. If Wang Jieqing has similar behavior, students are welcome to report Wang. Judging from the current situation, the main responsibility for data fabrication should be borne by the first author, Wang. Wang joined the College of Plant Protection at Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University in 2024 as a professor. I personally guess that he may not have been a lecturer, not an associate professor, and did not go through the 'up or out' system, but became a professor directly. If that paper were true, such treatment would be acceptable. But now that the paper is fabricated, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University should fire him; it is only natural.
Wang Mou posted about that incident, and then went to the College of Plant Protection at Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University. There must be other related talent subsidies as well, which should all be recovered—it is only right and proper. Some people might be soft-hearted and say Wang Mou is still young, and that firing him directly would ruin his future. You pity him, but who pities the person whose position was stolen by him? That position originally belonged to another young person who was doing serious scientific research. Who knows where that young person is now, or how they are doing? Even if Wang Mou is fired, the young person who ought to be here cannot come back, cannot come back, cannot come back. Firing him plus stripping him of all kinds of talent subsidies is merely confiscating ill-gotten gains; it is not excessive at all. Suppose a thief steals a million, and after being caught, returns the million to the victim, and the police just ignore it and let him go—that thief would be overjoyed. Wang Mou's situation is just like this; firing him plus returning all subsidies does not even fall into the category of punishment. Professor Wang certainly has students now, and I am not sure if Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University will fire Professor Wang. If he is not fired, the students should quickly change advisors. The reason for changing advisors is more than sufficient—the advisor committed academic fraud, and the school has no reason not to agree to let the students change advisors. If they still do not agree to let the students change advisors, the students can contact me, and I will help you figure out a way.
Actually, there is really no need to investigate this matter. I am speaking the truth, because the end result of the investigation will still be that nothing happens. No matter how you report it, it is useless, because schools in China will not have any clean ones; there are not any clean schools. It is just like the corruption of officials inside the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government, or all the managers, big and small, who are all using their positions to stir up trouble—the logic is completely consistent and identical. Very, very few people get to the top purely on their own real ability, because jobs with relatively high perks, good benefits, and great stability are all reserved for people with status. Therefore, fraud and resorting to tricks are almost inevitable. The evil of human nature is now growing wantonly on that land, and the sun cannot shine into it.