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 and The Science of Biofields.
Thanks for this excellent, level-headed article. If there’s one thing Reiki needs in the west, it’s less fluff and more sense. I totally agree that poorly-designed studies do nothing to benefit Reiki.
I am a Reiki Master Healer Teacher. I agree with what you have said. There is too much added on to Reiki. Reiki is simple and pure and that is all one needs to know.
I was completely ignorant about Reiki until I recently read Pamela’s book, Reiki: A comprehensive guide, after seeing her on the Dr. Oz Show. Although I had been a alternative medicine and natural healing enthusiast for quite some time and a believer of unseen things, I used to think Reiki is something spooky. Having grown up in Japan, I had associated the word “Rei” with “ghost” as many people in Japan do. So I used to think in my head “Hmm…ghost energy…” But thanks to Pamela I now have a better understanding of Reiki and can’t wait to try it out!
Thanks for the materials on Reiki in health care. Earlier in the day, I had emailed a friend of mine who has experience in writing grants and proposals for the Not for Profit sector and asked for advice on how to present Reiki to local hospitals. In other words, finding your blog today was very timely. I am going to read through your material in the next few days.
I also think that your demonstration on the Dr. Oz show will greatly advance Reiki awareness. The public is ready for a re-birth of energy healing, the re-discovering of our own innate empowerment to heal ourselves.
Thank you,
Ned
A friend of mine was part of a Univ of Michigan study to evaluate the effects of Reiki for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The study only looked at blood pressure, pulse and respiration before and after Reiki. The vital signs did not change much so Reiki was deemed ineffective. The subject claimed to feel better in many ways after the treatment but there was no other measurement in the study! These crude study methods need to be modified-it gives a false or narrow outcome.
Sharon, you are absolutely correct about this. Thank you for sharing this example.
Research is limited in that a study only records the data that were deemed relevant when the study was designed. Why a change in vital signs would be deemed relevant to the improvement of a complex and chronic condition is hard to imagine.
So much time and resources are wasted because Reiki studies are designed without including a seasoned Reiki practitioner in the research team. The Reiki practitioner (if there even is one involved at the design level) is often someone who has access, typically a full-time health care professional who happens to have Reiki training and some Reiki experience, who may be a wonderful Reiki clinician but who lacks the depth of understanding to be able to guide research.
I would love to know more about this study as I am going to the NCCAM conference on researching non-pharmacologic interventions and it is a good example of meaningless research.
Pamela, You are right on-the Reiki practitioner for the post traumatic stress disorder study at U.of M. was my Reiki 2 student and a physical therapy instructor at the unversity. She had little treatment experience. She herself was frustrated because the client reported feeling better but it did not fit in the study boundaries-study is about a year old. I am an RN, Reiki Master and part of advancing this modality wherever I can. My book is,” Healing with Hands, Miracles, Inspiration and Science,” subtitled Reiki and related energy therapies. please go to my website http://www.sharonbaker.net and take a look -like you I am out there promoting energy therapies around Michigan and wherever asked to go . This type of study is inaccurate and useless for energy advancement.
There is so much territory to be traversed between practitioners and research. I write this while attending an NIH NCCAM Research Workshop. These are people who really care about this field.
Pamela, please keep us posted on the NIH NCCAM workshop-what is being discussed and how can it help us Reiki practitioners? I belong to Michigan Holistic Nurses Assoc-it is always our goal to get bonified material out to the public and support one another. We love it when research shows what we all already know. Thanks much for your efforts.