Skepchick: Reiki Now Too Crazy For Catholics

Today, the Boston Globe reports that Catholic hospitals are banning the use of reiki, the practice of waving one's hands over a patient in the hopes of magically channeling a nonexistent "life energy" in order to promote healing. How nutty is this practice, exactly? Well, the Catholic Church officially believes in ghosts, zombies, multiplying dinner rolls, and crackers that are people, but even they're too savvy for this stuff.

The article presents a great example of "false balance," the journalistic practice of giving column inches to kooky ideas that aren't supported by the evidence, under the guise of presenting all viewpoints on an issue. The bulk of the Globe article is devoted to describing reiki as a system of healing that is "enjoying increasing popularity in the United States," which is only true in that yes, more people are doing it lately and yes, it "heals" in exactly the same way the placebo effect can seem to "heal."

On the pro-reiki side, the Globe quotes the following: Debbie Griseuk (reiki practitioner), Linda M. LaFlamme (executive director of the International Association of Reiki Professionals [IARPWTF]), and Kay Murphy (knee surgery patient who says it helped). On the anti-reiki side, they quote: a Catholic Bishop. The "der, I dunno" opinion comes from the director of the Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine at MGH, a department that tragically appears to be short one hyphen and one informed opinion. The director's exact quotes are pretty valid, suggesting that it's probably the placebo effect, but the article seems to try to make his position seem less sure, with lines like, "With reiki, he says, the question remains: Is it based in science or the placebo effect?"

So what's missing here? The actual science!

The article's opposing view of reiki comes in the form of a bishop who mentions the fact that reiki isn't valid but concentrates more on his opinion that faith in reiki is at odds with faith in the Catholic god. It's common among Christian religions to oppose new age spirituality as a false religion, so it's no surprise that the Catholic Church has made the decision to ban reiki. And it is the correct decision, but not for that reason.

Discontinuing the practice of offering reiki in hospitals is the right move because reiki is pure, unadulterated pseudoscience with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. Plus, while the article states that reiki is meant to supplement actual medical treatment, many people use it to replace the science-based medicine they need, like Debbie Harrison, an energy healing proponent who died of untreated diabetes in 2005. (Plenty more examples can be found here.)

One is moved to contemplate why the Globe is just now reporting on the ban of reiki several months after it was put in place, and why the Globe reporter chose to ignore the dangers of reiki in lieu of giving the practitioners a chance to peddle their pseudoscience.

Maybe we can ask about that today during the live chat with the aforementioned reiki practitioner Debbie Griseuk herself. We might also ask her about her final quote in the article: "Galileo was denounced by the Catholic Church. I don’t mind being in his company." We wonder if she has any idea who Galileo was and what that crazy stuff he was doing called "science."

Image of a reiki not touching a patient via Wikipedia

Contact the author of this article or email tips@bostonist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

andi

As a former skeptic, I see where you're coming from... But I think you're missing a few things.

First of all, did you know that the body actually emits light? Measurable, actual light? And that it's been proven by science? You can read more here: Science proves all living things emit light. (You are welcome to do more research as there is more out there.)

What does that have to do with Reiki? Well, while working with Reiki, my teacher will often refer to becoming lighter, becoming more light. And light is a form of energy, right? Many believe that Reiki is a form of light, and that energy that helps us center ourselves and remove things that are holding us back - physically, emotionally, even spiritually.

Others look at it as vibrations. There is scientific proof that our body's have a vibration and that people who are attuned in Reiki or as energetic healers have a higher vibration that is emitted by the hands (A. S. Popow from the Bioinformation Institute many years ago that this is true of all living organisms). It has also been shown that the body will have a lower vibration when it's ill, a higher vibration when it's well - and it's been shown that of individual body parts, as well. (Cancer has a very low vibration, for example.)

But don't forget, light is actually just vibrations so really I'm talking about the same thing above...

So when you look at Reiki from a purely scientific standpoint, there is definitely research that backs up that it is possible. (A GREAT book to read (since you're such a skeptic on the idea of energetic forces as they relate to humans) is "The Field" by Lynne Taggert. While it does discuss Reiki in brief, it talks more about energy, remote healing, the ability for us to meditation to affect things, etc. You'll probably hear her name a lot more since Dan Brown just wrote a book based on her information.)

I'm not here to change your mind, just open it slightly to the possibility that Reiki and other energetic medicines might actually be real. Just think of the possibilities if they ARE! Healing? Helping people deal with thing? My gosh. I would think it at least should warrant a small amount of hope, if nothing else.

Finally, the thing that convinced me that Reiki was for real was going in for a session. I had a gift certificate and I thought, "Why not?" While the first time wasn't huge, I felt better for several days. Just happier, "lighter". And I wanted to go back - which shocked me. I did... and I've been hooked ever since - continuing on to taking classes, becoming a Reiki practitioner of sorts (I don't charge, I only do sessions for family and friends). And it's been less than a year since I scoffed at Reiki!

So for me, the money isn't the thing, it's the changes in my life and my overall health and well being. (Yes, I've been significantly healthier since I've done this.)

So I challenge you to open your heart and your mind and at the very least, TRY a Reiki session if you've never done it before - and better yet, try it 2 or 3 times before you write it off completely.

My best to you.

jcmadrid

Good stuff! The point I was making is that Reiki and energy medicine is not as you state:

"the practice of waving one's hands over a patient in the hopes of magically channeling a nonexistent "life energy" in order to promote healing."

That is incorrect and sloppy journalism aimed at creating sensationalism.

Reiki and other energy medicine modalities are serious, mainstream therapies being applied with measurable results in countless hospitals in the US and Europe.

It is also the subject of a number of clinical trials (which is YOUR job to investigate, not mine, seing as I didn¬¥t write this article).

Above all, the hospitals that have implemented Reiki have done so usually because they have observed results which they have considered sufficient and worthwile.

I speak from experience, as I run a Foundation in Spain which implements complementary therapies in hospitals. We have trained 2,000 doctors and nurses in Reiki with excellent results.

Yes, we need to study energy medicine more to find out how it works, but the fact that it works nowadays is beyond doubt to those in the healthcare industry that use it.

Placebo effect? Well yes, of course there¬¥s a placebo effect, the same as the placebo effect in taking pills and even placebo surgeries, but the fact that it works, for example, with infants, people in coma and animals (I have two clinical trials of Reiki and laboratory mice) means that the placebo effect is only a percentage of the results, more or less the same as with drugs.

Einstein said "The greatest danger to science is a closed mind" and when a therapy is damned based on personal, biased superstition as opposed to a body of clinical evidence, well I would say that that is a totally UNscientific approach.

zeezero

No we don't need to study energy medicine more.

Energy is a unit of work, energy medicine is a non-sensical term. Just like Reiki.

I find it incredible that anyone defends the practice. There is no plausible mechanism for any effect. Other than some kind of supernatural energy ( oh misused that term again) field that is manipulated that somehow is providing some magical healing effect. Why not dress up like santa clause and do a dance and sprinkle sparkles on the sick person. It will probably do as much good and I guarantee it will also provice a nice placebo effect too.

@jcmadrid, you run a complementary medicine foundation in spain... I guess you don't have any money vested in keeping these quack practices in the hospitals eh?

Can I get your foundation to promote my dancing sprinkle santa therapy?

jcmadrid

As an afterthought, one would think that the best place to offer Reiki would be hospitals. In this way patients can be advised by professionals when Reiki should be applied, avoiding the case you mention of misuse of Reiki. Taking complementary therapies OUT of mainstream medicine is exactly what causes harm, as they are no longer submitted to adequate control and advice from doctors and medical personnel.

juryjone

The problem with hospitals administering complementary medicine is that it gives these procedures a legitimacy they have not earned. One can believe that reiki helps, but until properly blinded, rigorous studies show an actual effect, I don't want my doctor adding that to my health plan. In the same way, one can be certain that prayer works, but I don't want my doctor to be exercising "adequate control" over prayers.

jcmadrid

"So what's missing here? The actual science!"

Yep, that¬¥s what¬¥s missing.. but in your reporting! As a journalist, I believe research is a *fairly* important part of your work, wouldn¬¥t you say? I presume this would include adequate investigation of what you¬¥re writing about.

A search on the National Institute of Health¬¥s website www.pubmed.com that publishes ALL MAJOR clinical studies in the world will give you 1,506 references when you type in the word "Reiki". Of those references, you will find about 160 clinical trials, most of which show that Reiki has a measurable effect on illness.

Most of the trials were done using placebo control groups and one trial (Gloria A. Gronowicz, Ph.D. et al

Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT.) showed a modality of Reiki applied to cells in cultures. The last time I studied cell cultures, I remember them distinctly lacking in belief structures....

Please check your facts and do your job as a journalist before publishing stories based on subjective, non-scientific personal opinion...

Thanks!

Jeff

Don't listen to Rebecca, JC. She's obviously never felt the power of a really GOOD set of magic hands (let alone a good anecdote). This Italian friend of mine, for example, got so carried away with his hand waving that he resurrected a dead dog from his back yard. Darndest thing I ever saw.

Rebecca Watson

"Of those references, you will find about 160 clinical trials, most of which show that Reiki has a measurable effect on illness."

Oh really? Do most of them show that reiki has a statistically significant effect that differs from placebos? Which ones, exactly? How many?

"Most of the trials were done using placebo control groups and one trial (Gloria A. Gronowicz, Ph.D. et al

Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT.) showed a modality of Reiki applied to cells in cultures. The last time I studied cell cultures, I remember them distinctly lacking in belief structures...."

Apparently, the last time you studied cell cultures, you were unaware of the importance of blinding and tight controls. Gronowicz's recent study is pretty much the most interesting thing to ever come out of therapeutic touch research, which is a bit like being the skinniest kid at fat camp, but so be it.

Cell cultures do not have belief structures, but the humans handling them do. The handling of the plates in Grononwicz's study was not blinded, the placebo group was added later in the study and then compared post hoc to earlier results, and most damning, the researchers themselves admitted that under the proper, rigorous handling of the statistics, there was no significant effect on human osteoblast proliferation or mineralization results.

Sorry I didn't bother explaining the problems with a heavily flawed paper with better PR than scientific rigor.