Reiki and Science

Here is one terrific place to start exploring research done on Reiki:

Pamela Miles has been deeply involved in furthering the credible research done on Reiki.

Check her Medical White Papers page here:
http://reikiinmedicine.org/medical-papers/

*

(Information continues from Reiki Today.)

Reiki and Science

With the increasing emergence of (CAM) methods into mainstream awareness, energy healing – including Reiki – is getting more attention in the world of scientific research. While the currently preferred double-blind research style makes it difficult to test a method believed by many to stimulate overall wellness through supporting the recipient’s own healing, some attempts have been made to develop studies that can more accurately investigate Reiki’s holistic effects (Miles, 2008). There has, however, been a resistance in the science community against funding many studies that focus on energy medicine (McKusick, 2014; Schwartz, 2007; Sheldrake, 2013).

In his book, The Energy Healing Experiments: Science reveals our natural power to heal (2007), Dr. Gary Schwartz, Ph.D., professor and director of University of Arizona’s Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health, explains that Reiki and other energy medicines may work through harmonic vibrational or “sympathetic resonance, (ibid, p. 224)” which allows a “small vibration in one system, over time [to] foster an increasing vibration in a second system (ibid).” His book details various studies that demonstrate positive results that he says encourage further exploration of biofield medicines, but that are rarely published or difficult for the public to access. He has personally experienced the challenges of publishing his own scientific studies – when they are on a topic of energy medicine (ibid, p. 230).

Schwartz suggests some potential reasons for continued skepticism about energy healing in the western medical realm and general community may be based at least in part upon fear: In addition to the fear of fraudulent energy practitioners, there may also be also fear of challenging previously ingrained personal knowledge of how things are – energy medicine is rarely if ever mentioned in medical school (ibid, p. 207). There may also be fear of change in those working in or training in our currently familiar biochemically-based medical system; fear of lost income in pharmaceutical companies and surgical units that depend upon the current model; fear of lost funding for research for current medical models; and ultimately fear of the entire shift of cultural paradigm that could come from allowing an energy-medicine model to be fully embraced (ibid, pp. 227-228).

Throughout her book Tuning the Human Biofield: Healing with vibrational sound therapy (2014), sound therapist and author Eileen McKusick explores this topic, referring to the ongoing “fundamental disagreement of the Mechanistic vs. the Vitalists over the nature of life (ibid, p.105)” – a debate, she notes, that has existed anywhere from 400 to 2,500 years depending upon which source one refers (ibid). McKusick quotes in her book the earlier work of Beverly Rubick, Ph.D. on electromagnetic fields and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities who states that many CAM practices as well as “biofield therapies like Reiki [and others] all work within the underlying [electromagnetic field], but that these therapies remain outside the mainstream because there is no agree-upon scientific foundation to describe how and why they work (Rubick, as cited by McKusick, 2014, p. 108-9)” – the essential science challenge.

Encouragingly, McKusick’s quote of Rubick continues on to remind us that the scientific paradigm has already had to undergo other foundational shifts to incorporate previous advances in understanding of the world gained through physics, for example (ibid, p. 109), so there is hope for continued expansion of the currently restrictive science-based research practices over time. Among the work of others, McKusick’s work is contributing to this goal of finally bridging this gap. Finally, noted contemporary author, theoretical biologist, and researcher, Rupert Sheldrake’s newest book, Science Set Free: 10 Paths to new discovery (2013), addresses this topic head-on: he takes what he says are the top 10 dogmas of the science community that he considers are currently inappropriately limiting the horizons of research, and he sets those dogmas to science’s own tests – a test which he claims each dogma fails; he details the results one by one (Sheldrake, 2013).

Aside from overall paradigm resistance, there are some logistical challenges to creating consistent and credible Reiki research results that include non-standardized training of Reiki practitioners (Miles, 2007, 2009; Tsang, K. L., Carlson, L. E., & Olson, K., 2007), and reductionist versus holistic styles of most conventional studies – for example how does one create a truly neutral “sham” Reiki option for controlled studies, or separate out the placebo effect of a modality that as Pamela Miles points out “does not address disease [but] encourages the person toward balance (Miles, 2008, p. 210)?”

To help move research forward despite these challenges, Pamela Miles has for years purposefully worked with conventional medical practitioners and researchers in medical facilities to initiate and promote as many standardized scientific research studies as she can in order to advance the study of Reiki (Miles, 2007, 2008). In addition to helping to establish Reiki programs in hospitals around the country and generally promoting Reiki credibility and research, she has also participated in several well-known studies herself, including a study on heart rate variability (HRV) conducted at Yale University (see more detail below). She was also involved with “Reiki for Mind, Body, and Spirit Support of Cancer Patients” published in Advances in Mind-Body Medicine (2007) which tells of several studies done with cancer patients researching Reiki’s effects on fatigue, anxiety, and pain.

Alongside Miles’ contributions to advance the quality and awareness of Reiki studies, 2008, the Center for Reiki Research began developing the Touchstone Process for standardized peer review of 25 current science-based Reiki research studies that had been published in peer-reviewed journals. This project was created as an expansion of William Rand’s original website that listed for public awareness the growing number of hospitals that offered Reiki services – at least 800 of which had been established by 2007 (Baldwin, Vitale, Brownell, Scicinski, Kearns, & Rand, 2010).

One of the studies (mentioned above) that attempt to address this gap in research was done at Yale and with the collaboration of Reiki researcher Pamela Miles. This study compared three groups of patients who had experienced a heart attack within the previous three days: one group rested; a second group listened to calm, classical music; the third group received 20-minutes of Reiki from the nurses. The outcome of this study showed a strong positive result:

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 [heart rate variability]. The benefit shown was comparable to that seen in a study of beta blockers (Friedman, Burg, Miles, Lee, Lampert, 2010)

Another, the study “Pilot crossover trial of Reiki versus rest for treating cancer-related fatigue,” published in Integrative Cancer Therapies, (Tsang et al, 2007) showed significant reduction in fatigue – overall and daily (both are common issues for cancer treatments) – as well as increased assessment of overall quality of life including energy, comfort and relaxation in the Reiki versus rest groups. “…Rest is somewhat helpful at reducing [cancer-related fatigue]…but not as effective as Reiki, which has been found to effect individuals in terms of physical health but also psychospiritual and social aspects, as well (ibid, p. 9).” The wash-out period for Reiki’s effects was longer than the one-week long study – far longer than the expected time frame that had been estimated to likely be three or fewer days (ibid). Drawbacks to this study include limited subjects (16 of the 20 subject goal), and a lack of a Reiki control to rule out the placebo effects of positive interaction with another. Finally, because of the group cross-over design and the longer-than-anticipated wash-out time of Reiki effects, it is possible that lingering effects of Reiki may have caused a false-positive increase of the outcome of “rest” on one of the groups in the study (ibid, p. 10).

Another study that also relates to longer-term effects of Reiki was published in Alternative therapies in health and medicine in 2003. This study followed 45 subjects divided into three groups (hands-on Reiki, distance Reiki, and distance placebo) for once-a-week treatments for six weeks – beginning and ending the active phase of the study with a questionnaire regarding depression and self-perceived stress, and following up with another questionnaire a year later. To blind the expectations, both distance groups were told they would receive Reiki, whereas the hands-on group was told they may or may not receive Reiki. There had been no difference between the groups before the study, but both Reiki groups resulted in lasting positive results. “Upon completion of treatment, there was a significant reduction in symptoms of psychological distress in treatment groups as compared with controls… and these differences continued to be present [one] year later (Shore, 2003).”

Other studies that showed positive effects of some degree include one study that assessed pain relief from combined distance Reiki plus distance LaShan healing on 21 patients after their surgical removal of impacted third molars; the conclusion was that the combination provided for that group “significant relief (Wirth, Brenlan, Levine, & Rodriguez, 1993).” A comparison of hemoglobin and hematocrit levels taken before and 24-hours-after after Reiki (introductory) level-one training of 48 healthy adults in 1988 showed “significant” change between before and 24-hours after class, as compared to the parameter-comparison of the control group of 10 healthy adult medical professionals taken during that same time frame. Limitations included small same size, self-selection, and unclear Reiki history of participants (Wetzel, 1989).

A qualitative study that ranged over three years in Brooklyn, New York, reviewed the Reiki Master diary and records of participant-led stories of their weekly Reiki treatments and training on 40 residents with HIV/AIDS living in supportive housing; most participants also had several other issues such as substance abuse and/or mental health issues, as well as history of challenging life circumstance of varying detail. The study was designed to be narrative and flexible, allowing the clients to describe their Reiki and other life experiences freely and without enforced structure. Participation was voluntary and initially participants were offered a free 2-ride Metro card as incentive, until the last six months of the study. Researcher/Reiki Master’s diary notes record the dramatic shift from “sullen” and relatively un-enthusiastic participants assumed to be coming only for the metro card, to excited and enthusiastic participation that sustained even after the Metro cards had stopped. Many participants shared that Reiki had changed their lives for the better, an assessment that was also commented upon by other support staff for the housing program. Significant positive results included increased participation and interest, reduced stress, elevated mood and morale of both residents and support staff. The goal of the study was to “qualitatively describe the implementation of a Reiki training program,” rather than efficacy of the provided Reiki itself (Mehl-Madrona, Renfrew, & Mainguy, 2011).

While other studies also demonstrate or suggest positive effects or results from Reiki, still others showed little or no difference between Reiki groups and control or other treatment type groups. A sampling of those includes the following:

No significant effects from Reiki were found in a pilot study on “functional (physical) independence and depressed mood (Shiflett, S. C., Nayak, S., Bid, C., Miles, P., & Agostinelli, S., 2002)” of 30 patients who had experienced a stroke. There was a control group of 20 others randomly selected from hospital records. The Reiki groups had been divided into groups that had received six to ten 30-minute treatments over a two and a half week period by a sham provider, a Reiki Master, or a Reiki practitioner who was not at Master Level.

Thirty-two women who had undergone breast biopsy were divided into one group for off-site Reiki treatment along with conventional care, and another for conventional care with post-op instructions and a subscription for pain medication. Three questionnaires over the course of one week focused on anxiety and depression showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Drawbacks included off-site versus on-site Reiki treatment, lower than average anxiety at the start for the participants, no blinding of assignment for the participants (however, the data collector was blinded to the assignments), and treatments were not standardized (Potter, 2007).

Other studies had mixed results – two examples of this are A.) short-term subjective positive effect found on pain and quality of life but no longer-term effect on reduction of pain or pain medications (Olson, Hanson, & Michaud, 2003); and B.) reduction of physical but not mental stress in 100 undergraduates in a study with four stations including Reiki, placebo Reiki, music, and mediation (Witte & Dundes, 2001);

Some qualitative studies included participants’ subjective descriptions of the experience of receiving Reiki – they are similar in description to each other: in “Reiki and changes in pattern manifestations,” “Reiki was found to be associated with changes in awareness from dissonance and turbulence to harmony and well-being by helping individuals knowingly participate in actualizing their own capacities for healing. (Ring, 2009);” Pamela Miles’ study “Reiki for Mind, Body, and Spirit Support of Cancer Patients” (2007) lists participant’s descriptions of their subject experience of their session that correlates very well with Engebretson & Wardell’s “Experience of a Reiki Session” (2001) results, as well as a remarkable resemblance to the results of this Aroma-Reiki study (see Findings section for more detail).

There are many other studies that show a range of results. Many of these studies have poor design or reporting, some of which could be attributed to well-meaning attempts by those with limited resources to further research on the subject. Ideally, as more attention is focused on these important questions and as demand grows to include Reiki and similar wellness modalities in research, larger and more carefully structures studies will be funded that may bring deeper understanding of the subject and its potential.

*

More to come… Look for the full paper to be available online at a future date!

See References here.