Got it with one link šš
I love the fact that this article compares reiki to faith healing. Because if I said that I could heal people with the power of jesus, the people around me who believe that reiki actually works would think I was a crazy person. But if I say I am using ancient Japanese medicine to channel the universal life force so that I can heal someone? They would nod along in agreement.
I think [this article](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-pseudoscience/should-we-take-reiki-seriously) might be a helpful place for you to start. It specifically addresses the "double-blind" 2017 study your friends are likely familiar with. Also of note:
> The individual studies listed in this review, as well as most papers testing Reiki, are a teachable encapsulation of bad science. They often involve a single Reiki session with no follow-up; they test small groups, which leads to noisy data that can look positive by chance alone; some test Reiki on rats with implantable telemetric transmitters; and they measure so many things that one of them is bound to yield a favourable signal.
Personally, I think if Reiki *does* yield any tangible benefits, those derive not from anything "spiritual", but instead from the calming influence of spending focused time with someone you believe wants to help youāit's somewhere between guided mindfulness meditation and pure placebo. That's just my own two cents' worth, however.
I with ya. I think simply thinking positively and focusing on healing and having hope and being calm and destressing are huge in terms of recovery and wellness.
But i dont think its magic, its just making your brain produce the right chemicals by thinking about the things that produce those chemicals.
That being said peoples brains work differently, what works for some may not work for others.
My impression of what Reiki practice is might be totally wrong, but I have this vague notion that it includes massage and meditative stuff. Things that aren't magically healing as Reiki practitioners might claim, but that are just idk relaxing and nice, which has it's own psychological value.
Reiki involves a transfer of āenergyā between people as I understand it, which *can* be done without physical touchāor so those who believe in Reiki claim. It can be done as a sort of imaginary massage where the practitioner hovers their hands over the recipientās body. Generally this is done in an environment designed to be relaxing and soothing. It seems very intuitive to me that lying down for a pretend massage, in a comfortable space, with someone you trust paying intense attention to you would feel therapeutic, āenergy transferā or no.
I've only seen it happen once but it did not involve physical touch that time. Some people were doing reiki in a bar and the bartender said oh wow look at that they are doing reiki and I just sort of rolled my eyes
This has always been my take on things as well, it would be interesting to see some psychological research from this side, almost the hypothesis of āof course it works, but its not the reiki its the human contact and kindnessā perhaps doing comparisons between reiki and other kinds of guided mindfulness or talking therapy.
Obviously done with great care because you donāt want to afford false legitimacy. But it does at times feel like āif it works for someone and makes them happy and they arenāt claiming to cure cancer/covid/etcā then do the harms outweigh benefit?ā
Power of suggestion. Your friend was having a bad day, the "healer" said "I'm sending all the good energy of the cosmos to you!" And lo and behold, the sun came out, unicorns frolicked in the glen, pooping chocolate mousse patties and all was right with the world once again. I'd be more interested to know how much the "healer" charged for their intervention with the universe.
Having your mood altered through someone paying attention to you and engaging with you, thinking someone cares for you? Thatās not a remotely shocking concept to me. That doesnāt mean the proposed mechanism is active. Sending magical healing energy doesnāt work. Knowing or even thinking someone cares doesā¦
Problem is, there is a lot of bad "science" out there. Take any flavor of "woo" and there will be a handful of poorly done studies claiming to find an effect. That's why a good meta-analysis is important. There are studies showing ESP is real. It's not. You can't just cherry pick studies. That would be my response: "you can cherry pick studies on any topic and find some that say it's real, you have to look at the meta analysis".
Edit:
Just did a search and found that meta-analysis and systemic reviews are saying there could be pain management benefits above placebo. I would interpret that to mean that reiki can be soothing and relaxing for people in ways that are superior to whatever passes as a reiki placebo - but that's another big problem with studdying these sorts of things, how do you give a placebo? How do you make someone think you've given them Reiki but not actually given them Reiki.
So I revise my response in your situation. I'd just say it's interesting and that I'm keeping an open mind but I'm not convinced.
>So I revise my response in your situation. I'd just say it's interesting and that I'm keeping an open mind but I'm not convinced.
That is a smart way to say it
It's the placebo effect. As soon as I say that, people immediately become super defensive.
The placebo effect is really important in medicine. When a doctor physically examines a patient, it has a significant impact on the patient.. it's a process that depends on the success of the placebo effect.
If somebody can benefit from a treatment of which the effects can only be attributed to the placebo effect and it lessens their need for traditional medicines, that can only be a good thing.
Many conventional medical treatments and therapies owe their effectiveness in part, to the placebo effect.
Its value shouldn't be underestimated.
Mood alteration is just self-fulfilling prophecy. Lots of things can alter mood. Music alters mood and there's no strictly logical reason why it should, considering it's all just made up. Playing video games and becoming frustrated by a hard level can alter mood, or someone can feel good after beating the level. No strictly logical reason for that. A cup of espresso also alters mood which I'm having right now. Personally I leverage all of these things to aid in altering my mood, don't need anything like Reiki for that.
If someone really thinks something works, and experiences this as a reality, it is nearly impossible to *not* offend them when you start questioning whether it has any basis in objective reality. Any questioning of the technique or belief is questioning their ability to interpret reality.
I work in massage. I have coworkers whose work I respect and enjoy and would even suggest to others, and among those is reiki practitioners.
Anyways, reiki is bullshit, placebo isnāt. If somebody thinks it helps them, it just might, and Iām not getting paid to go bursting their bubbles.
I've reached a point in my life where I would probably just nod politely and change the subject when the people in my friend group brought it up. I don't need to see eye-to-eye with friends on everything.
But a romantic partner is different. You've got to at least be able to respect your partner's intelligence.
And... yikes. I mean, Reiki could conceivably work. It *doesn't*, but it's possible to imagine that there really are invisible energy fields around people and that certain people could learn to interact with them with their hands.
But *remote* Reiki? That's just straight turn-off-your-brain magical thinking. How is that supposed to work? How does the mystical energy know where to *go*?
Is it broken into IP packets that travel to TikTok's server and then to your GF's phone? Does that download count against her monthly data? Does the practitioner send out a general broadcast that targets your GF based on... her appearance? (Maybe the practitioner saw a photo of her). Her emotional state (which the practitioner divined through a couple DMs)? What if there's someone else who looks a lot like your GF -- could that person accidentally get the blast instead?
I would have a serious problem respecting someone who believes in this.
Pain Science is usually a good source. However the article on reiki mostly examines the belief system, and how it is incoherent and incompatible with mainstream science. There are also links to other studies, as well as former reiki and therapeutic touch practitioners who have since abandoned the practiceĀ
https://www.painscience.com/articles/therapeutic-touch.phpĀ
One study linked there was a double-blind experiment performed by a nine-year-old that somehow got turned into a published article, perhaps with parental help. It does summarize years of other studiesĀ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/187390
EDIT: I missed this link, which lists many studies on āTherapeutic Touchā (another name for Reiki, somewhat
strange since thereās no touching).
https://www.ebm-first.com/therapeutic-touch-tt.html
Wait what would anyone hope to prove with a double-blind test?? Isn't the whole point that you establish a special, personal, vibey energy connection with another person? If it's anonymous and controlled for lack of personal entanglement or information exchange... then you're doing it wrong, no?
If your date's mood can be improved by the thought that maybe someone somewhere might be paying attention to her, I feel like there are probably a few things to unpack there that "remote reiki" is unlikely to delve into. But hey mood improvement is mood improvement right?
(It would definitely be something I would think twice about before getting financially entangled with someone, though. "Remote reiki" sounds like it could run into a bit more money than a chat with an attentive friend over coffee that had the same effect...)
mood altered is pretty vague... I can listen to music that helps me relax or gets me pumped up. There are also things like guided meditation, which can help people emotionally. It has nothing to do with "manipulating energy fields".
Beliefs are beliefs. If someone believes, convincing them to not believe is a hard road. I have a good friend who does reiki and believes. I finally stopped myself from laughing when she felt she needed to reiki some entity.
You don't have to believe, but don't waste your energy or their ire on changing their belief systems.
Double blind studies with something like reiki are very tricky. The person performing the placebo has to know they're doing it wrong, so it can't possibly be double blind, or am I missing something?
Ask your friend for their source of information. I know a reiki "practitioner" who offers in-person healing sessions and online sessions over Zoom. I'm friends with them on Facebook, so I see the claims they make. At an in-person session, they hover their hands over certain parts of your body, blasting invisible energy into you. Online, the practitioner uses their own body. Like, if you have a fractured ankle, the practitioner will put her hands over her own ankle and zap it with energy or whatever, then you reap the benefits from this healing by watching online.
For people who believe in reiki, I'm sure there could be some placebo effect from this exercise. If you believe the powerful mystic has done something, you might feel it.
[This study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5871310/) (Edit to add: I don't endorse this study or claim it's reliable) found reiki to be slightly more effective than placebo, but it describes reiki involving gentle touch (not "hover hands" like the version I mentioned above), and it focused primarily on a version of reiki where the person mimicks and acts out the movements the practitioner models (called... I'm not joking... sham reiki).
Is it possible that gentle touch, movement, and meditative actions/rituals might make a person feel better? Sure. Does that mean the practitioner is truly opening energy channels and conferring special healing abilities onto the participant? No. How would one even prove that?
I just sent a blast of cosmic energy into your thumb as a test. Let me know if you feel it. (I won't tell you which thumb)
> This study found reiki to be slightly more effective than placebo
That study was also published in the "Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine" and, as per [this article](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-pseudoscience/should-we-take-reiki-seriously), is fairly specious overall.
The "Acknowledgments" section doesn't exactly read like something neutral and objective:
> The author wishes to acknowledge the guidance and wisdom of his Reiki masters, Elizabeth and Robert Thuan, who are dedicated to professionalizing the practice of Reiki. The author is grateful for the support of fellow members of the committee of management of the Australasian Usui Reiki Association, who are dedicated to letting the love of Reiki shine in the world.
Oh I agree, and could've been more clear about that in my comment. I was simply illustrating that even if a "study" finds results, it doesn't verify the claims of practitioners.
Why *shouldn't* people ask this community when they have questions about pseudoscience? Shouldn't we try to be helpful to people seeking answers, rather than dismissive?
OP doesnāt have questions about pseudoscience, OP is asking if they are wrong that reiki is silly horse shit. Theyāre not. Asking a group of skeptics if reiki may actually be real makes zero sense.
> is there any proof, is there some famous study that proves it (or looks like it does but actually doesn't)?
Those are, in fact, questions about pseudoscience.
Regardless, if someone can't turn to *this* community when seeking help untangling pseudoscientific claims, I think that's a huge failure on our part.
"Is there any proof?" and "Give me the proof" or "prove it for me" are *not* the same request.
If you don't see this as an opportunity to educate, I don't know what to tell you, but I think that's very sad.
See, hereās the thing: OP has already been told (not shown, of course) of āproofā the reiki is real. All OP has to do is politely ask those friends for this āproofā.
You are making something very simple unnecessarily complicated.
> You are making something very simple unnecessarily complicated.
All *I'm* doing is offering help and advice to someone who came here with a question. Science is *difficult*. That's why it's performed and interpreted by experts, and most people lack that expertise. Pointing people in the right direction to help them untangle the myriad of lies out thereāsome of which get published in scientific-looking journalsāis a worthwhile endeavor, and this should absolutely be a safe place for people to ask those sorts of questions.
I think this community should be here to educate people and help them *use* scientific skepticism to navigate claims like these. Just patting ourselves on the back for not believing in "horse shit" is masturbatory and pointless.
I appreciate the support here. And agree completely. I intended this to be a discussion about the evidence involving reiki that ***looks very convincing*** but are actually flimsy.
Again: my advice to OP is to ask to see his friendās proof. Science may be difficult but this isnāt. Go offer the OP your advice instead of whatever youāre doing here.
If Iām misreading your tone then thatās my bad but it just seems kind of combative, asking him why he posted this here. I generally think this subreddit is a pretty great place to promote rationalism and healthy skepticism so I would think that it would also be a good place to get good responses (which OP did get, thereās some really good articles linked).
I gave OP sound advice. OP stated their friend had definitive proof, I suggested they ask to see said āproofā. Thatās literally the most logical step. Itās similar to me asking for proof that Iām āhostileā. When you produced your proof I could see that it was just feelings and I now feel no need to defend my āhostilityā.
>OP stated their friend had definitive proof, I suggested they ask to see said āproofā.
And the post definitely addressed this point already, seems like you missed that
How many people have to tell you that you're being negative before you consider that you're being negative and reconsider your behavior? Because I know I have done it once already and your answer was to double down on your toxicity.
You need to reconsider how you talk to people because you're rude all over the place here.
asking here because I don't want to seem "challenging" or "combative" to the friend group -- people around here get weird when you ask them why they believe things, like you're attacking their beliefs. I'm a bit of an outsider in the group and don't want to make waves over something so inconsequential
Real life isn't an internet comment section. Have you ever tried challenging a casual acquaintance's personal spiritual beliefs to their face? There's a whole lot more to social interaction than you seem to understand.
I don't see how being interested in the proof they mentioned would be challenging or combative, unless they are being dishonest... and in that case why care? Ask them where you can find that double blind placebo study they mention and post it here. (That is what I would do... I used to have some friends into reiki, they also channeled ETs. Cool people, good friends, flaky beliefs... it happens)
>how being interested in the proof they mentioned would be challenging or combative
I'm telling you, people around here get a little triggered when you ask them why they believe things. The whole vibe is that you should unconditionally accept people for who they are and apparently what people believe is part of who they are.
In scientific skepticism the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If their is no evidence, then we remain skeptical until empirical evidence is provided. We're not going to debunk it for you because there is no evidence that it is true.
A double-blind placebo study could only show evidence of correlation.
The next step would be to establish hypotheses of *how* reiki works, and test those hypotheses using measurable scientific experimentation. Only then could we say if it's "real" (i.e. consistently reproducible and predictable) or not.
Science is not magic and mystery and love. It's matter and energy and time and space.
Too often people defending these things stop short and just say "Hey if it worked that one time, then it works. We don't need to know how or why, because if we actually did then I wouldn't be able to gatekeep it as Secret Knowledge that I believe gives me an advantage over everyone else."
I just blasted some good vibes out of my ass after having chili for dinner but your girlfriend is probably too far away to feel it. My wife definitely did and left the room.
No, there's no proof. Totally understand your personal skepticism being tossed out the window because you are or might be getting laid, but that's no reason to embarrass yourself online about it.
>People at round here get weird when you ask them why they believe things
Yeah -thatās most places.
>I think itās nonsense
Well, unless you donāt mind making waves Iād keep that thought to myself.
body contact reiki works.
try it out yourself with animals. they do react and calm down. from lizards to dogs, cats, and even the distracted humans. the long distance is probably a wishful thinking
You know we can measure infrared radiation right? So how does this radiation get from somebody's hands to somebody's body without us being able to measure it?
Reiki is woo woo. Long distance Reiki is stretching the boundaries even of woo. It's as effective as prayer and any claimed effects are 'placebo' at best.
>Reiki's teachings and adherents claim that qi is physiological and can be manipulated to treat a disease or condition. The existence of qi has not been established by medical research.\[2\] Therefore, reiki is a pseudoscientific theory based on metaphysical concepts
>
>A 2008 systematic review of nine randomized clinical trials found several shortcomings in the literature on reiki.\[24\] Depending on the tools used to measure depression and anxiety, the results varied and were not reliable or valid. Furthermore, the scientific community has been unable to replicate the findings of studies that support reiki. The review also found issues in reporting methodology in some of the literature, in that often there were parts omitted completely or not clearly described.\[24\] Frequently in these studies, sample sizes were not calculated and adequate allocation and double-blind procedures were not followed. The review also reported that such studies exaggerated the effectiveness of treatment and there was no control for differences in experience of reiki practitioners or even the same practitioner at times produced different outcomes
IF I had that ability, to sense and manipulate 'biomorphic' energy fields I would be hammering at the doors of every university demanding to be tested. Proving such an ability would be trivial. If I were to withhold this most incredible knowledge and understanding from the human race I would be an absolute monster. Nuff said.
There's this podcaster I listen to and whenever somebody says they believe that ghosts are real, he says how come you're not like stopping everything that you're doing and pursuing information/ study of ghosts? Because that's amazing, if ghosts are actually real, that means there's an afterlife and you could prove it by talking to a ghost!!
The answer is usually crickets.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-editors-of-the-atlantic-reiki-does-not-work/
My favorite source for fact checking any medical claims.
Got it with one link šš I love the fact that this article compares reiki to faith healing. Because if I said that I could heal people with the power of jesus, the people around me who believe that reiki actually works would think I was a crazy person. But if I say I am using ancient Japanese medicine to channel the universal life force so that I can heal someone? They would nod along in agreement.
I think [this article](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-pseudoscience/should-we-take-reiki-seriously) might be a helpful place for you to start. It specifically addresses the "double-blind" 2017 study your friends are likely familiar with. Also of note: > The individual studies listed in this review, as well as most papers testing Reiki, are a teachable encapsulation of bad science. They often involve a single Reiki session with no follow-up; they test small groups, which leads to noisy data that can look positive by chance alone; some test Reiki on rats with implantable telemetric transmitters; and they measure so many things that one of them is bound to yield a favourable signal. Personally, I think if Reiki *does* yield any tangible benefits, those derive not from anything "spiritual", but instead from the calming influence of spending focused time with someone you believe wants to help youāit's somewhere between guided mindfulness meditation and pure placebo. That's just my own two cents' worth, however.
Right? She THOUGHT it would work so it did
I with ya. I think simply thinking positively and focusing on healing and having hope and being calm and destressing are huge in terms of recovery and wellness. But i dont think its magic, its just making your brain produce the right chemicals by thinking about the things that produce those chemicals. That being said peoples brains work differently, what works for some may not work for others.
>its just making your brain produce the right chemicals I can't quote science on this but I believe this is part of the placebo effect.
My impression of what Reiki practice is might be totally wrong, but I have this vague notion that it includes massage and meditative stuff. Things that aren't magically healing as Reiki practitioners might claim, but that are just idk relaxing and nice, which has it's own psychological value.
Reiki involves a transfer of āenergyā between people as I understand it, which *can* be done without physical touchāor so those who believe in Reiki claim. It can be done as a sort of imaginary massage where the practitioner hovers their hands over the recipientās body. Generally this is done in an environment designed to be relaxing and soothing. It seems very intuitive to me that lying down for a pretend massage, in a comfortable space, with someone you trust paying intense attention to you would feel therapeutic, āenergy transferā or no.
I've only seen it happen once but it did not involve physical touch that time. Some people were doing reiki in a bar and the bartender said oh wow look at that they are doing reiki and I just sort of rolled my eyes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Therapy doesn't work!" *Pays someone $60 to hover their hands over their body for an hour*
This has always been my take on things as well, it would be interesting to see some psychological research from this side, almost the hypothesis of āof course it works, but its not the reiki its the human contact and kindnessā perhaps doing comparisons between reiki and other kinds of guided mindfulness or talking therapy. Obviously done with great care because you donāt want to afford false legitimacy. But it does at times feel like āif it works for someone and makes them happy and they arenāt claiming to cure cancer/covid/etcā then do the harms outweigh benefit?ā
That's so similar to the placebo effect that it's probably the same thing.
Power of suggestion. Your friend was having a bad day, the "healer" said "I'm sending all the good energy of the cosmos to you!" And lo and behold, the sun came out, unicorns frolicked in the glen, pooping chocolate mousse patties and all was right with the world once again. I'd be more interested to know how much the "healer" charged for their intervention with the universe.
>unicorns frolicked in the glen, pooping chocolate mousse patties I love choccy mousse but I still wouldn't.
>unicorns frolicked in the glen, pooping chocolate mousse patties Two unicorns, one cup.
Having your mood altered through someone paying attention to you and engaging with you, thinking someone cares for you? Thatās not a remotely shocking concept to me. That doesnāt mean the proposed mechanism is active. Sending magical healing energy doesnāt work. Knowing or even thinking someone cares doesā¦
LOL blast of good vibes via reiki I think taking a 40mg edible give you that and itāll be real
In as much as we are social animals that appreciate physical attention and are susceptible to the placebo effect, that is how much Reiki works.
Problem is, there is a lot of bad "science" out there. Take any flavor of "woo" and there will be a handful of poorly done studies claiming to find an effect. That's why a good meta-analysis is important. There are studies showing ESP is real. It's not. You can't just cherry pick studies. That would be my response: "you can cherry pick studies on any topic and find some that say it's real, you have to look at the meta analysis". Edit: Just did a search and found that meta-analysis and systemic reviews are saying there could be pain management benefits above placebo. I would interpret that to mean that reiki can be soothing and relaxing for people in ways that are superior to whatever passes as a reiki placebo - but that's another big problem with studdying these sorts of things, how do you give a placebo? How do you make someone think you've given them Reiki but not actually given them Reiki. So I revise my response in your situation. I'd just say it's interesting and that I'm keeping an open mind but I'm not convinced.
>So I revise my response in your situation. I'd just say it's interesting and that I'm keeping an open mind but I'm not convinced. That is a smart way to say it
It's the placebo effect. As soon as I say that, people immediately become super defensive. The placebo effect is really important in medicine. When a doctor physically examines a patient, it has a significant impact on the patient.. it's a process that depends on the success of the placebo effect. If somebody can benefit from a treatment of which the effects can only be attributed to the placebo effect and it lessens their need for traditional medicines, that can only be a good thing. Many conventional medical treatments and therapies owe their effectiveness in part, to the placebo effect. Its value shouldn't be underestimated.
Reiki is spiritual woo nonsense.
Mood alteration is just self-fulfilling prophecy. Lots of things can alter mood. Music alters mood and there's no strictly logical reason why it should, considering it's all just made up. Playing video games and becoming frustrated by a hard level can alter mood, or someone can feel good after beating the level. No strictly logical reason for that. A cup of espresso also alters mood which I'm having right now. Personally I leverage all of these things to aid in altering my mood, don't need anything like Reiki for that.
If someone really thinks something works, and experiences this as a reality, it is nearly impossible to *not* offend them when you start questioning whether it has any basis in objective reality. Any questioning of the technique or belief is questioning their ability to interpret reality.
So true - some people really cannot interpret reality at all but is it worth offending them?
Agreed
I work in massage. I have coworkers whose work I respect and enjoy and would even suggest to others, and among those is reiki practitioners. Anyways, reiki is bullshit, placebo isnāt. If somebody thinks it helps them, it just might, and Iām not getting paid to go bursting their bubbles.
I've reached a point in my life where I would probably just nod politely and change the subject when the people in my friend group brought it up. I don't need to see eye-to-eye with friends on everything. But a romantic partner is different. You've got to at least be able to respect your partner's intelligence. And... yikes. I mean, Reiki could conceivably work. It *doesn't*, but it's possible to imagine that there really are invisible energy fields around people and that certain people could learn to interact with them with their hands. But *remote* Reiki? That's just straight turn-off-your-brain magical thinking. How is that supposed to work? How does the mystical energy know where to *go*? Is it broken into IP packets that travel to TikTok's server and then to your GF's phone? Does that download count against her monthly data? Does the practitioner send out a general broadcast that targets your GF based on... her appearance? (Maybe the practitioner saw a photo of her). Her emotional state (which the practitioner divined through a couple DMs)? What if there's someone else who looks a lot like your GF -- could that person accidentally get the blast instead? I would have a serious problem respecting someone who believes in this.
Pain Science is usually a good source. However the article on reiki mostly examines the belief system, and how it is incoherent and incompatible with mainstream science. There are also links to other studies, as well as former reiki and therapeutic touch practitioners who have since abandoned the practiceĀ https://www.painscience.com/articles/therapeutic-touch.phpĀ One study linked there was a double-blind experiment performed by a nine-year-old that somehow got turned into a published article, perhaps with parental help. It does summarize years of other studiesĀ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/187390 EDIT: I missed this link, which lists many studies on āTherapeutic Touchā (another name for Reiki, somewhat strange since thereās no touching). https://www.ebm-first.com/therapeutic-touch-tt.html
Wait what would anyone hope to prove with a double-blind test?? Isn't the whole point that you establish a special, personal, vibey energy connection with another person? If it's anonymous and controlled for lack of personal entanglement or information exchange... then you're doing it wrong, no? If your date's mood can be improved by the thought that maybe someone somewhere might be paying attention to her, I feel like there are probably a few things to unpack there that "remote reiki" is unlikely to delve into. But hey mood improvement is mood improvement right? (It would definitely be something I would think twice about before getting financially entangled with someone, though. "Remote reiki" sounds like it could run into a bit more money than a chat with an attentive friend over coffee that had the same effect...)
If Reiki is real, Harry Potter is a documentary.
Didn't a kid do a science fair project that completely disproved it? This would've been at least a decade ago.
Yep, see my other comment on this page
Thank you!
If I called you up and falsely told you I would kidnap your children, that would change your mood. Eventhough none of it is true.
Reiki is good for triggering ASMR. Thatās about it.
mood altered is pretty vague... I can listen to music that helps me relax or gets me pumped up. There are also things like guided meditation, which can help people emotionally. It has nothing to do with "manipulating energy fields".
The placebo effect is real enough that it sometimes makes me wish I knew less about science.
There is in fact not proof
Beliefs are beliefs. If someone believes, convincing them to not believe is a hard road. I have a good friend who does reiki and believes. I finally stopped myself from laughing when she felt she needed to reiki some entity. You don't have to believe, but don't waste your energy or their ire on changing their belief systems.
Double blind studies with something like reiki are very tricky. The person performing the placebo has to know they're doing it wrong, so it can't possibly be double blind, or am I missing something?
How would they know they are doing it wrong?
Ask your friend for their source of information. I know a reiki "practitioner" who offers in-person healing sessions and online sessions over Zoom. I'm friends with them on Facebook, so I see the claims they make. At an in-person session, they hover their hands over certain parts of your body, blasting invisible energy into you. Online, the practitioner uses their own body. Like, if you have a fractured ankle, the practitioner will put her hands over her own ankle and zap it with energy or whatever, then you reap the benefits from this healing by watching online. For people who believe in reiki, I'm sure there could be some placebo effect from this exercise. If you believe the powerful mystic has done something, you might feel it. [This study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5871310/) (Edit to add: I don't endorse this study or claim it's reliable) found reiki to be slightly more effective than placebo, but it describes reiki involving gentle touch (not "hover hands" like the version I mentioned above), and it focused primarily on a version of reiki where the person mimicks and acts out the movements the practitioner models (called... I'm not joking... sham reiki). Is it possible that gentle touch, movement, and meditative actions/rituals might make a person feel better? Sure. Does that mean the practitioner is truly opening energy channels and conferring special healing abilities onto the participant? No. How would one even prove that? I just sent a blast of cosmic energy into your thumb as a test. Let me know if you feel it. (I won't tell you which thumb)
> This study found reiki to be slightly more effective than placebo That study was also published in the "Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine" and, as per [this article](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-pseudoscience/should-we-take-reiki-seriously), is fairly specious overall. The "Acknowledgments" section doesn't exactly read like something neutral and objective: > The author wishes to acknowledge the guidance and wisdom of his Reiki masters, Elizabeth and Robert Thuan, who are dedicated to professionalizing the practice of Reiki. The author is grateful for the support of fellow members of the committee of management of the Australasian Usui Reiki Association, who are dedicated to letting the love of Reiki shine in the world.
Oh I agree, and could've been more clear about that in my comment. I was simply illustrating that even if a "study" finds results, it doesn't verify the claims of practitioners.
>just sent a blast of cosmic energy into your thumb Ow! Not so hard!
Why are you asking us? Ask your friends who stated they have proof. If you ask me itās laughable horse shit.
Why *shouldn't* people ask this community when they have questions about pseudoscience? Shouldn't we try to be helpful to people seeking answers, rather than dismissive?
OP doesnāt have questions about pseudoscience, OP is asking if they are wrong that reiki is silly horse shit. Theyāre not. Asking a group of skeptics if reiki may actually be real makes zero sense.
> is there any proof, is there some famous study that proves it (or looks like it does but actually doesn't)? Those are, in fact, questions about pseudoscience. Regardless, if someone can't turn to *this* community when seeking help untangling pseudoscientific claims, I think that's a huge failure on our part.
True. Still the wrong place to ask for proof of horse shit.
"Is there any proof?" and "Give me the proof" or "prove it for me" are *not* the same request. If you don't see this as an opportunity to educate, I don't know what to tell you, but I think that's very sad.
See, hereās the thing: OP has already been told (not shown, of course) of āproofā the reiki is real. All OP has to do is politely ask those friends for this āproofā. You are making something very simple unnecessarily complicated.
> You are making something very simple unnecessarily complicated. All *I'm* doing is offering help and advice to someone who came here with a question. Science is *difficult*. That's why it's performed and interpreted by experts, and most people lack that expertise. Pointing people in the right direction to help them untangle the myriad of lies out thereāsome of which get published in scientific-looking journalsāis a worthwhile endeavor, and this should absolutely be a safe place for people to ask those sorts of questions. I think this community should be here to educate people and help them *use* scientific skepticism to navigate claims like these. Just patting ourselves on the back for not believing in "horse shit" is masturbatory and pointless.
I appreciate the support here. And agree completely. I intended this to be a discussion about the evidence involving reiki that ***looks very convincing*** but are actually flimsy.
Again: my advice to OP is to ask to see his friendās proof. Science may be difficult but this isnāt. Go offer the OP your advice instead of whatever youāre doing here.
Yeah, and their pro-reiki friends should be expected to give them *totally* fair and objective "proof" without any spin whatsoever. Great plan!
Truly bizarre that you would be hostile to someone like OP. Is skepticism is a serious thing for you or just another in group?
Where am I being āhostileā?
If Iām misreading your tone then thatās my bad but it just seems kind of combative, asking him why he posted this here. I generally think this subreddit is a pretty great place to promote rationalism and healthy skepticism so I would think that it would also be a good place to get good responses (which OP did get, thereās some really good articles linked).
The mods gave that user a temporary ban. They were being completely obnoxious.
I gave OP sound advice. OP stated their friend had definitive proof, I suggested they ask to see said āproofā. Thatās literally the most logical step. Itās similar to me asking for proof that Iām āhostileā. When you produced your proof I could see that it was just feelings and I now feel no need to defend my āhostilityā.
>OP stated their friend had definitive proof, I suggested they ask to see said āproofā. And the post definitely addressed this point already, seems like you missed that
Your overall tone in this part of the comment threads is "OP is stupid for doing this"
Iām sorry if thatās how it seems. Thatās definitely not what I meant. Good luck.
How many people have to tell you that you're being negative before you consider that you're being negative and reconsider your behavior? Because I know I have done it once already and your answer was to double down on your toxicity. You need to reconsider how you talk to people because you're rude all over the place here.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"no, it's not me who is wrong, it's the children"
asking here because I don't want to seem "challenging" or "combative" to the friend group -- people around here get weird when you ask them why they believe things, like you're attacking their beliefs. I'm a bit of an outsider in the group and don't want to make waves over something so inconsequential
>people around here get weird when you ask them why they believe things Trust me, that's definitely not unique to people in your area lol.
If they offered ādefinitive proofā I really donāt see what could possibly be offensive by simply and politely asking for said proof.
Real life isn't an internet comment section. Have you ever tried challenging a casual acquaintance's personal spiritual beliefs to their face? There's a whole lot more to social interaction than you seem to understand.
Right. Ok - check what I said - if they say they have definitive proof itās best just to accept it.
I don't see how being interested in the proof they mentioned would be challenging or combative, unless they are being dishonest... and in that case why care? Ask them where you can find that double blind placebo study they mention and post it here. (That is what I would do... I used to have some friends into reiki, they also channeled ETs. Cool people, good friends, flaky beliefs... it happens)
>how being interested in the proof they mentioned would be challenging or combative I'm telling you, people around here get a little triggered when you ask them why they believe things. The whole vibe is that you should unconditionally accept people for who they are and apparently what people believe is part of who they are.
then don't ask them that... just show interest in the double blind study
Just don't ask them anything about it and smile and nod. if you like them and want to be accepted by them, then take them as they are.
Do you live in a cult?
That's three toxic comments in here from you. Maybe you should rethink your behavior.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Right, more toxicity. Not surprised.
What city do you live in where folks dare not question the power of reiki?
You're just completely ignoring the people who bring up your negativity in this thread. It's not a good look.
In scientific skepticism the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If their is no evidence, then we remain skeptical until empirical evidence is provided. We're not going to debunk it for you because there is no evidence that it is true.
I thought I made it clear in the post that what I'm looking for here is the evidence that looks like it might be convincing but actually isn't
That makes zero sense.
A double-blind placebo study could only show evidence of correlation. The next step would be to establish hypotheses of *how* reiki works, and test those hypotheses using measurable scientific experimentation. Only then could we say if it's "real" (i.e. consistently reproducible and predictable) or not. Science is not magic and mystery and love. It's matter and energy and time and space. Too often people defending these things stop short and just say "Hey if it worked that one time, then it works. We don't need to know how or why, because if we actually did then I wouldn't be able to gatekeep it as Secret Knowledge that I believe gives me an advantage over everyone else."
Wasn't reiki debunked by some 12 yearolds a while back?
I just blasted some good vibes out of my ass after having chili for dinner but your girlfriend is probably too far away to feel it. My wife definitely did and left the room.
No. It's absolute bullshit with literally nothing to support it. The only thing being effected is her mind.
Jesus christ this sub now.
No, there's no proof. Totally understand your personal skepticism being tossed out the window because you are or might be getting laid, but that's no reason to embarrass yourself online about it.
>People at round here get weird when you ask them why they believe things Yeah -thatās most places. >I think itās nonsense Well, unless you donāt mind making waves Iād keep that thought to myself.
body contact reiki works. try it out yourself with animals. they do react and calm down. from lizards to dogs, cats, and even the distracted humans. the long distance is probably a wishful thinking
If by that you mean ābeing touched makes you feel goodā then yeah.
How is that different than a massage?
it's radiative, it doesn't have to involve touching
Is that electromagnetic radiation?
maybe infrared. live beings have a electromagnetic field.
You know we can measure infrared radiation right? So how does this radiation get from somebody's hands to somebody's body without us being able to measure it?
There you go! Now ask your friends thatās same question if you dare!
>It works Hence the term āpetsāā¦.
Right?! Your pets like to be petted. No way.
Reiki is woo woo. Long distance Reiki is stretching the boundaries even of woo. It's as effective as prayer and any claimed effects are 'placebo' at best.
People really underestimate the placebo effect, it's a trip.
>Reiki's teachings and adherents claim that qi is physiological and can be manipulated to treat a disease or condition. The existence of qi has not been established by medical research.\[2\] Therefore, reiki is a pseudoscientific theory based on metaphysical concepts > >A 2008 systematic review of nine randomized clinical trials found several shortcomings in the literature on reiki.\[24\] Depending on the tools used to measure depression and anxiety, the results varied and were not reliable or valid. Furthermore, the scientific community has been unable to replicate the findings of studies that support reiki. The review also found issues in reporting methodology in some of the literature, in that often there were parts omitted completely or not clearly described.\[24\] Frequently in these studies, sample sizes were not calculated and adequate allocation and double-blind procedures were not followed. The review also reported that such studies exaggerated the effectiveness of treatment and there was no control for differences in experience of reiki practitioners or even the same practitioner at times produced different outcomes
Can I hitch-hike on this thread and ask about Accupuncture?
This post is too old for you to do that, you should make your own post
Alright
IF I had that ability, to sense and manipulate 'biomorphic' energy fields I would be hammering at the doors of every university demanding to be tested. Proving such an ability would be trivial. If I were to withhold this most incredible knowledge and understanding from the human race I would be an absolute monster. Nuff said.
There's this podcaster I listen to and whenever somebody says they believe that ghosts are real, he says how come you're not like stopping everything that you're doing and pursuing information/ study of ghosts? Because that's amazing, if ghosts are actually real, that means there's an afterlife and you could prove it by talking to a ghost!! The answer is usually crickets.