Reaching for science to make an impressive case for Reiki treatment may seem like a good idea, but it can seriously backfire if you are not a scientist. Here are a few suggestions to keep you off the hotseat, and help you avoid discrediting both yourself, and Reiki practice.

1. Avoid overstating the research.

The scientific study of Reiki practice is just beginning. Very little research has been published. Many of the studies published are not very strong. All of the published studies are small. Scientists are really just learning how to study traditional healing practices such as Reiki, acupuncture and yoga, which impact the body in very different ways than pharmaceuticals do. At this point, there is not enough scientific evidence to support including Reiki treatment in standard medical care. Given that Reiki treatment is already being offered to patients at top-tier hospitals such as NY-Presbyterian Columbia University Medical Center, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer Center, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the lack of scientific evidence doesn’t seem to be a problem.

2. Avoid studies not published in peer-reviewed journals.

Avoid them like the plague. Just because a study was done doesn’t mean it is good science, and if it’s not good science, it’s not going to impress a scientist or physician. How can Reiki practitioners know if a study is worth citing? Studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals (think Journal of the American Medical Association, not Scientific American), have to pass peer-review. This is an involved process designed to separate solid studies from the rest, and it only makes sense to follow the experts on this. After all, the goal of researching Reiki is to meet the established standards of medical research, not to invent our own. Nothing is gained (and much could be lost) by citing a study that hasn’t passed peer-review. Scientists know the difference between solid science and goop even if Reiki practitioners don’t. Read the fine print, because there are Reiki websites that promote unpublished studies.

3. Avoid science you don’t understand.

Pop science draws interest only from non-scientists, and it doesn’t build credibility. Don’t pretend. Most physicians don’t understand quantum physics, and they know you don’t either. Scientists are specialists; they accept that they don’t know everything. Scientists expect experts to recognize the limits of their own expertise, and to communicate with clarity, brevity, and respect. Scientists do not expect Reiki practitioners to be scientists, but if we don’t respect that they are, why would they listen to what a Reiki practitioner has to say?

It basically comes down to being respectful and demonstrating critical thinking. Scientists, physicians, and the public are watching to see whether Reiki practitioners are offering credible information, or making claims. Since there are no standardized credentials for Reiki practice, people decide whether we have credible information that could benefit them primarily on the basis of our demeanor and our words.

Related material:
Reiki, Science, and the Media
Recording of a Reiki Presentation Pamela gave at a medical conference
Introduction to Medical Reiki Webinar
Practicing Reiki in Health Care: What You Need to Succeed

Effects of Reiki on Autonomic Activity Early After Acute Coronary Syndrome. Rachel S.C. Friedman, Matthew M. Burg, Pamela Miles, Forrester Lee, and Rachel Lampert J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010;56;995-996.

In the above study, published in one of the most prestitigious peer-reviewed conventional medical journals, patients who received a 20-minute Reiki treatment within three days after suffering a heart attack showed improved mood and heart rate variability (HRV). Let’s take a look at what this means in nontechnical language.

A heart attack is a stressful event which, like other stressful events, also causes a stress response. A stressed body is less resilient, less able to cope with more stress. This means a patient who has just had a heart attack has a higher risk of having another one. Doctors are well aware of this dangerous cycle, and helping the body recover its resilience is a primary goal in cardiac care.

That’s why standard hospital care after a heart attack includes beta blockers, drugs that help the body recover its resilience. But beta blockers work slowly, and some patients cannot tolerate them.

The Yale researchers wondered if a non-pharmacologic intervention might be just as effective, work faster, be safe for all patients–and even help patients feel better?

In the high-tech acute cardiac care setting, why would doctors be interested in patients feeling better? Because subjectively feeling better is known to have objective effects on health. It is well documented that emotional stress negatively affects autonomic nervous system (ANS) function, and therefore heart disease (ANS controls heart rate).

This randomized, controlled study looked at non-invasive, nondrug interventions to help patients recover faster from a heart attack. The study had three arms:

• Group 1 (12 patients) rested quietly without interruption.
• Group 2  (13 patients) listened to slow tempo, meditative, classical music.
• Group 3 (12 patients) received 20-minute Reiki treatment from Reiki-trained staff nurses.

Patients were measured initially for baseline, and again after the intervention, and the two sets of measurements were compared. The measurements from all groups were then compared to the others.

The impact of the intervention (rest, music, or Reiki) was measured in two ways, emotional state and heart rate variability (HRV), a physiologic measure that indicates if the patient’s body is recovering from the stress response.

The patients rated themselves on both positive states (happy, relaxed, calm) and negative states (stressed, angry, sad, frustrated, worried, scared, anxious).

Reiki treatment improved all positive emotional states and reduced all negative states. Comparing the three groups, the Reiki group had the most positive changes in emotional state, and the resting control had the least.

Reiki treatment also improved HRV. The benefit shown was comparable to that seen in a study of beta blockers.

Additionally, the study showed that Reiki treatment can be offered in an acute-care setting. This is important. Sometimes interventions are found to be helpful but they are not feasible in a real life care setting. None of the patients experienced any adverse events.

In this study, Reiki treatment significantly improved mood and HRV compared to the resting and music control conditions. Many questions remain unanswered, such as how long does the benefit of a Reiki treatment  last?

Much more research is needed. But this is a good start.

Related reading:
How Reiki Treatment Helps Doctors
Evaluating Reiki Research

The JACC paper has been translated into Spanish, Efectos del reiki sobre la actividad autonómica del paciente en el período inmediato a la presentación de síndrome coronario agudo.

This post has been translated into Spanish, El Tratamiento de Reiki Ayuda a los Pacientes con Ataques al Corazón.

INTRODUCTION to MEDICAL REIKI WEBINAR
Have you been waiting for online training to help you bring Reiki into hospitals and other health care settings? Wait no more. The Introduction to Medical Reiki Webinar will give you skills and strategies to get you started in health care. Let’s get Reiki where it is needed, and raise the professionalism of our practice. Click here to learn more.

If you’re a Reiki practitioner wanting to champion Reiki in health care, chances are you’re looking for studies that prove Reiki.

Let me save you some time: there are no such studies.

Nor is it necessary to prove Reiki in order to communicate the value of Reiki treatment in health care.

When speaking about Reiki treatment to a physician, it’s enough to (calmly) let her know that Reiki treatment is safe, and widely used in clinical settings (i.e. places where patients are given treatment, such as hospitals and cancer care centers).

More time-saving news: you don’t have to start from scratch if you want to communicate to physicians that Reiki treatment is safe, and how Reiki treatment can support their patients.

Use the medical papers I wrote, available to download here. (Do I hear you knocking yourself upside the head?)

The first three papers are all that you need. The Reiki review article overviews the science, practice, history and theory. “Reiki Support for Cancer Patients” updates the research and tells specifically how Reiki can help anyone who is addressing cancer. The paper focuses on the human experience rather than disease pathology (Reiki does not address disease directly). That means the information and perspective this paper offers can be easily customized to fit any disease population (i.e. people addressing any medical diagnosis). Just do a little internet research to learn the particular challenges faced by people addressing the disease of interest. There will be much overlap here–for example, anxiety is common among people with any serious medical diagnosis–but you want to find out what in particular concerns this group of people.

The “Reiki Vibrational Healing” interview speaks to physicians, in language comfortable to them, about the clinical advantages Reiki treatment offers, without making claims.

No groundbreaking Reiki research has been published since those articles, so using them alone is sufficient. No one in medicine expects you to be a physician or a scientist. They just want you to be level-headed, avoid making claims, and point them in the direction of the science.

Unless you are research-savvy, if you reach beyond the safety zone of those three papers, you risk putting your credibility in question. When I write a Reiki research review, I carefully assess the merit of each study I include. Vetting studies is my job as an expert. It is not my job to publicize every study that’s been published on Reiki, no matter how poorly designed it is. Not all authors and editors are as discerning in their choice of research, and some truly shoddy studies have been published in the less rigorous journals. Using poorly designed Reiki studies to buoy the credibility of Reiki treatment to scientists is a strategy bound to backfire.

In the mood for more background? Click here to read a succinct overview of Reiki research from the informed perspective of a medical social worker. While I don’t agree with all that she says (such as channeling Reiki energy), and her definition of double blinding is inaccurate (it’s the data gatherer, not the Reiki practitioner, who must be blinded to which participants are receiving Reiki), and I actually did a study in which all the practitioners were blinded, these are details compared to the overall value of the writer’s intelligent, balanced perspective. Her unraveling of the myth of direct Japanese to English translations is priceless, and validated by years of living in Japan and speaking the language.

Ghost vapor, anyone?

Related reading:
Reiki Is Not a Word
The Science of Biofields

INTRODUCTION to MEDICAL REIKI WEBINAR
Have you been waiting for online training to help you bring Reiki into hospitals and other health care settings? Wait no more. The Introduction to Medical Reiki Webinar will give you skills and strategies to get you started in health care. Let’s get Reiki where it is needed, and raise the professionalism of our practice. Click here to learn more.

This could be a very short post, because when it comes to the science of biofields, there isn’t any. That’s why the NIH uses the word “putative.”*

That’s not to say there isn’t a talented scientist or two engaged in cutting edge investigation of these mysterious realities. The scientific community has fringe elements like any other community. But fringe scientists doing frontier science don’t get a lot of respect until their data–and cause–are taken up by the mainstream.

Science is a group conversation, and in any group, what matters is what most people are saying. That’s called consensus, and that’s what carries weight. Consensus can be wrong, but it’s foolish to buck it, especially when trying to establish credibility.

Unless done skillfully, reaching for science to bolster your presentation of Reiki will likely backfire. Only people who don’t need “proof” will be impressed; scientists are skeptical by nature and training, and readily find the holes in an argument. So until such time as doctors are ordering kirilian photographs instead of CT scans and MRIs, don’t risk running your argument aground by confusing frontier science and conventional science.

If you want to lean on science, be humble. Deflect attention away from biofields, and focus instead on the research into how Reiki treatment can benefit people. Acknowledge first that this investigation is just beginning, then state that preliminary data suggest Reiki can help improve heart rate, blood pressure, and immunity, and reduce pain, anxiety, and depression. We do not yet have enough research evidence to say more than that, and if you try to, you run the risk of discrediting yourself, and Reiki.

If you are communicating with physicians or other health care professionals who want more information, you needn’t do the heavy lifting yourself; just hand them the top three articles in the medical papers section.

*NOTE:
The section of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that studies the safety and efficacy of complementary therapies such as Reiki is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM).

Here is what NCCAM says about biofields in the section on energy medicine: “Biofield therapies are intended to affect energy fields that purportedly surround and penetrate the human body. The existence of such fields has not yet been scientifically proven.”

I was the principal reviewer for the Reiki Backgrounder posted on the NCCAM website. This document has no copyright and you are encouraged to use it freely.