I was just curious as to your opinion on whether or not having a lotus birth is more beneficial than simply delaying clamping and cutting of the cord until after it's finished pulsating?
Clamping and cutting the cord when it stops pulsating is undoubtedly an invasive procedure. It implies that a birth attendant behaves like an observer and is repeatedly touching the cord. This is a terrible distraction at a time when the mother is discovering her baby and has forgotten the rest of the world. The main effect of this distraction is to interfere with the release of a high peak of oxytocin—the shy hormone—a woman has the capacity to release just after the birth of the baby. This peak of oxytocin is vital, since it is necessary for an easy and bloodless delivery of the placenta, and since oxytocin is called the main "hormone of love."
Some hours after the birth, the cord is thin, dry, hard, and exsanguine. Then it can be cut without any precaution. In many developing countries, delaying cord-cutting would have many spectacular advantages: one of them would be to eliminate the risks of tetanus, which is still a common cause of infant death (Michel Odent, "Neonatal Tetanus," The Lancet 371 (2008): 385-386). Lotus birth is an extreme attitude. One of the main components of this approach is that the cord is never cut: several days after the birth it falls down when completely dry. Before adopting this attitude, read the book Lotus Birth by Shivam Rachana in order to learn how to take care of the placenta during the days following birth. Of course we are talking about women who can give birth with their own hormones, to the baby, and to the placenta by themselves.