Ancient people may have created cave art while hallucinating

>And many cave paintings are literally just hand prints, so not much skill is needed "Literally just hand prints" couldn't be more wrong. This is that whole "trained eye" thing I was talking about. First, the skill needed to make the pigment (find materials, make materials, transport materials, not to mention the ability to craft tools to harvest the raw materials). Second, the skill to use a crude straw to spit/blow it on there. Third, it's not just handprints but also includes full animal shapes with correct dimensional observation, consistent scale between objects, a story-telling progression. This is not just "go in there and slap your hands on the wall." It was done with purpose, intent, and practice. I want you to tell me, without looking it up, how to make an ocher pigment that is also a [UV blocker](https://theconversation.com/what-the-use-of-ochre-tells-us-about-the-capabilities-of-our-african-ancestry-47081). I'll wait. It should be simple, right? From your "paper": >It is true that at very few caves, such as Enlène (Averbouh 1999; Bégouën et al. 1996) and Trois-Frères (Bégouën et al. 2007; Bégouën, Clottes, Feruglio, & Pastoors, 2014), hearths were located deep in the interior, and the effect of using fire in these contexts will have to be examined in the future. In other words, the premise they're thinking about applied to *extremely* few instances. So, no, cave art wasn't done while "people" were hallucinating but rather in a very *very* few specific instances. It was not done as some kind of grand ritual for primitive peoples but only done in the context of, what, maybe 5 caves? And they don't even address how reduced oxygen levels effectively eliminate the fine motor control required to paint. The whole idea is interesting but this is blown so far out of proportion to the evidence available as to be nothing more than a ridiculous attempt to sensationalize an idea to make a name for themselves.