I would suggest to contact Prof. Korotkov's office but I'm sure that they and Tom Chalko too would laugh of the points these so called "skeptics" make. So I wouldn't really count on receiving an answer from any of them because it's basically a waste of time.
Nevertheless I'll try to point something. The first thing that comes to mind is that the base theory of their skepticism is "moister". Kirlian photography is used in objects (like rocks and metals) which have a very low or inexistent level of moisture. Kirlian photography photographs for example an object before and after intense concentration over it and we can see the differences. If these inanimated objects can register such differences in kirlian photography I'd be very skeptical myself as to their skeptic theory.
Kirlian photography thus doesn't seem to depend upon the level of moisture at all. Depending the level of moisture, skin electrical resistance and other factors is another type of technology called "
biofeedback". They seem to confuse this technology with Kirlian photography and infer the same conclusions from it.
Something else I noticed is that nowhere did I see concrete scientific evidence that backs their claims. They don't accurately mention their sources so that we can validate the experiments that were done.
Most people don't bother to read beyond what's in front of their eyes and don't think for themselves. Kirlian technology has got more than 40 years of extensive research and the correlations that exist between physical and emotional states and the corresponding finger / foot (reflexology) areas are demonstrated beyond doubt. The sources are too numerous to list here but here's a good one to start:
http://kirlianresearch.com/kirlian_principle.html
Please notice that to worthy advancements in science in whatever the direction, there will always be those that either seeing it as at threat or fearing something else, will do everything possible to put obstacles in the way.
For me this definition in the skeptics dictionary is not even worth the time spent reading it. It's neither scientifically coherent nor plausible in my opinion.