
Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it? - jacobedawson
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/04/reiki-cant-possibly-work-so-why-does-it/606808/
======
hcarvalhoalves
> The ailments that Reiki seems to treat most effectively are those that
> orthodox medicine struggles to manage: pain, anxiety, chronic disease, and
> the fear or discomfort of facing not only the suffering of illness but also
> the suffering of treatment.

This is key.

Modern medicine, with the way hospitals and health insurance are run, do not
and cannot address, for economic reasons, a pretty important aspect, albeit
subjective, which is well-being.

The figure of the family doctor that takes his time and actually shows you
attention has vanished. The average experience of a hospital visit is that of
being treated like a number.

No surprise then that Reiki, or whatever other alternative practice really,
that allows you to have the undivided attention, one day a week, from someone
who cares about you, works wonders. Endorphins are powerful, Oxytocin
specially, its role in modulating inflammation response is already known, and
a lot of complains (chronic pain, mood disorders, mental function, even
obesity) are tied to chronic inflammation.

So, yes, about time more serious study is done on the importance of well-
being.

~~~
normalnorm
> Modern medicine, with the way hospitals and health insurance are run, do not
> and cannot address, for economic reasons, a pretty important aspect, albeit
> subjective, which is well-being.

The "economic reasons" are just the preferences of the rich & powerful.
Resources could be allocated in other ways. It is just that those that call
the shots are not interested. In the US, they also managed to convince a large
part of the population to act against its own interests.

I dream of an economic system that serves human beings instead of the
numerical abstractions behind which the rich and powerful hide their extreme
selfishness.

~~~
Qasaur
>I dream of an economic system that serves human beings instead of the
numerical abstractions behind which the rich and powerful hide their extreme
selfishness.

This is what capitalism is in its essence - a complex decentralised pricing
mechanism where every human's choices is taken into account on the free
market. The problem is that it has been corrupted by cronyism which has
indirectly destroyed the human element of it (through centralisation and the
formation of unnatural state-sanctioned monopolies and rent-seekers) and
instead, as you put it, abstracted people into numbers.

I don't think anyone actually wants to be treated as a number, and I strongly
believe that personal and bespoke service is a quality that most people seek
in the services they choose (especially medical and caregiving services).
These preferences would normally provide strong competitive pressures.
However, in the medical field at least, enormous barriers of entry (largely
instituted and enforced by the state) has fortified incumbent corporations and
removed the competitive pressure that startups and newcomers would provide.
Just look at medical education/licensing and the enormous costs involved.

~~~
danharaj
When it's good we call it self-interest. When it's bad we call it cronyism.

We define capitalism in terms of markets because we would rather not discuss
the more fundamental question of who owns what.

When capitalism produces spectacular exaggerations of human cruelty, it has
been corrupted. When a socialist system produces it, it is intrinsic.

~~~
ernst_klim
> When capitalism produces spectacular exaggerations of human cruelty, it has
> been corrupted. When a socialist system produces it, it is intrinsic.

Nobody blame socialism for cruelty in good faith. Cruelty has nothing to do
with economic system.

What socialism (or any government trying to replace or severely restrict
private sector) really does way more worse is empty shelves, deficit and
terrible recourse misallocation.

There are more fundamental questions than the leisure ones like "who ownes
what". Such as how come my parents lived in the second largest economy in
terms of GDP and only few years later the whole country had nothing to eat,
and we had a humanitarian crisis without any war or natural calamity.

------
connectsnk
Many people are commenting that Reiki is like Meditation i.e. all mumbo jumbo
placebo effect. This might persuade a lot of people to reject both without
going through the experience.

I have been a very infrequent practitioner of meditation since 2009. I am now
a very different person and there is no way for me to measure how or what has
changed in me. I am way more focused, happier and might I conservatively add
the word "successful" in my married life as well as financially.

As most of us have a very scientific attitude towards life, we all can atleast
experiment with it. If it works for us, then good. If it doesn't, just move
ahead. I have no instrument which can measure my experience but I don't need
to google it to know if it has worked for me or not.

Again all I am saying is that please dont have the attitude "Whatever is not
written in the books we studied or if there is something we can not explain
with our logic, then it must be mumbo jumbo" is the ultimate ignorance. I am
not saying that we stop doubting and accept Reiki at face value. I am just
saying to keep a scientific attitude, experiment with it and see if it works

~~~
lilSebastian
Genuinely interested, how did you get started with meditation?

~~~
nindalf
Don’t know about that guy but I did it with Headspace. It’s guided meditation
- he coaches you through it. I found it pretty helpful.

Nowadays I do guided yoga with YouTube videos but I try to keep the lessons
from Headspace in mind while doing them - clear my mind, focus on my
breathing, if my mind wanders gently bring it back, think about how my body
feels etc.

~~~
riffraff
another vote for headspace for a simple reason: it has very little (none?)
metaphysical/new age/faux-buddhist BS.

Things "feel the energy of the earth getting in through your soles" kind of
things, which I find deeply annoying and distracting.

I am sure such things _are_ useful for some people though, so YMMV.

~~~
h0h0h0h0111
Headspace and Youtube were also my experience. I think a large part of getting
into meditation is finding a meditation guide(?) with a voice you enjoy
listening to.

It sounds really silly, but certain accents (particularly ones close to my
own) were quite uncomfortable to listen to, and similarly certain scripts
(like you, the "energy mumbo-jumbo") were really distracting.

After trying out a bunch of youtubers I eventually found some with a voice and
script that helped me feel at ease, but I'm sure it's a very personal
endeavour

------
crispinb
Almost more interesting than Reiki itself is the reflexive responses,
bifurcating essentially into:

1\. it's all mumbo jumbo

2\. there's more in heaven and earth, my son

Note that neither group is particularly interested in the empirical evidence,
though group 1 will tend to take a louder cherry-picking feint at it.

An empiricist mindset is _really hard_ for humans to inhabit. We (scientistic
hard-heads included) judge propositions new to us largely in terms of what we
think we already know, and pre-existing metaphysical beliefs weigh far, far
heavier than does empirical evidence.

My reflexive reaction is closer to 1 than to 2. But I don't take that reaction
more seriously than any old muscle twitch I might happen to have.

~~~
seer
Great comment and I apologize in advance for going off topic.

We all have our mental models and it takes effort to re-evaluate and change
them. And as the saying goes - there are no right models, only useful ones in
some situations. Some are useful in more situations than others. Take “flat
earth” model of the world. It’s not right, but it’s precise enough for the
purposes of living in a village. Nothing wrong with that, its when you want to
venture out, then you have to find a more precise one. But if you live your
life in that village - it’s very useful and you can be excused for believing
that this is all there is to the world.

I once started learning some chinese martial arts, and the instructor was a
true believer in more than the fighting techniques, but the spirituality that
comes with it. Very easily debunked by modern fact based science. But if you
followed the practices that the believes justified, you could help your health
tremendously - meditation, physical exercise, calmness - it had a very neat
system to explain everything.

Imagine being a practitioner several thousand years ago - you had a system and
if you made people practice it - they got better. Even if the exact mechanism
of why it happened is flawed, and failed in some cases, by the most part it
worked. You just had to refine it a bit.

And it did help me as well. Had I just dismissed it as shaman mumbo jumbo and
not went through with it, I’d be worse off for sure. No reason I had to adopt
his model wholesale though - I just needed to attempt to reconcile his one
with the science based one I knew, and see where I can learn a thing or two.

Anyway just wanted to say that from that I did learn to be more tolerant and
not dismiss out of habit things that were not peer reviewed double blind
tested, but rather look at the results first.

All models are wrong, some models are useful.

~~~
travisjungroth
> Take “flat earth” model of the world. It’s not right, but it’s precise
> enough for the purposes of living in a village. Nothing wrong with that, its
> when you want to venture out, then you have to find a more precise one.

I don’t think you have to have a more precise model. The modern world is
incredibly tolerant of bad models.

Last year, I visited four continents. I don’t think a single thing would have
been different if I believed the world was flat. It’s not like I was flying
the plane. I just bought a ticket, showed up, and tried to fall asleep.

~~~
kingludite
My model is exact. I don't need my world to be round or flat. Until I do I
really don't care. The superiority in this model is that it doesn't distract
me from things I do care about. You just have to appreciate what little minds
we have and how short it lasts.

This is a human doing a puzzle with 2 parts

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c1qhCtpAa4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c1qhCtpAa4)

This is a human doing a puzzle with 3 parts

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zQmkyH0Mr0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zQmkyH0Mr0)

~~~
lonelappde
Number of pieces isn't strictly the source of complexity. The complexity of
the pieces matters too.

------
mcv
It's not so strange that Reiki works; it's a form of placebo effect. Placebos
work, despite there provably being no active ingredient at work, and there
being no reason at all for them to work _except for the belief of the
recipient_. There's a good reason why new medicine needs to be proven to be
better than a placebo in a double-blind study, and not merely better than no
treatment at all with patients who know what they're getting. It is because a
placebo does have effect.

Of course this belief is not going to cure cancer or broken bones, but it can
reduce pain, nausea or affect other feelings. And feelings do matter. Our mind
is not detached from our body, it is part of it. What we believe influences
what we do, how our bodies react. How our bodies heal.

As a parent, I cure a lot of my kid's injuries with a kiss. It's surprisingly
effective. No idea why. It's pure placebo, but it helps.

Placebos are still a poorly understood field. I've read that the placebo
effect has been getting measurably stronger of the past few decades. How is
that possible? And the size and colour of placebo pills matters. Believing
that the placebo is the real thing rather than a placebo also helps, but even
if you do know it's just a placebo, it can still have some effect.

The human mind is weird and still poorly understood. I don't want to get
mystical about it; the mumbo jumbo behind reiki with its ki energy and all is
most likely total nonsense. But our mind is part of our body, and what we
think and believe influences what we do and how our body behaves. So believing
in it may still help, which creates an ethical conundrum: is it okay to lie to
someone when that lie has been proven to be good for their health? I honestly
don't know. I often think I'm too skeptical to receive much benefit from these
'alternative treatments', just like a kiss is unlikely to make an adult's pain
go away. I like believing the truth. But in this case believing the lie might
be better for you. I'm still not sure how I feel about that.

~~~
fooblat
No, placebos don't work.

That is not what is meant by "the placebo effect" by doctors. There is no
active ingredient in a placebo. That's why it has no effect on broken bones or
cancer. A placebo doesn't have an effect on anything.

However, patients that receive treatment that include a placebo medication
and/or procedure (instead of the active version) often report improvement in
their perception of their condition. Including pain, nausea, depression, and
anxiety. The patients report feeling better.

This "feeling better" after receiving a fake treatment is the placebo effect.

The reason a kiss and a hug works so well on kids (and adults) is that it is
comforting and loving. It makes them feel safe and secure and cared for,
lowering their anxiety and indeed pain.

~~~
mikegioia
It sounds like your contradicting yourself. You say placebos don't work and
don't have an effect on anything, but in that example the kiss is the placebo.
And then you say the kiss lowers their pain, which implies it does work.

------
ALittleLight
"Over the past two decades, a number of studies have shown that Reiki
treatments help diminish the negative side effects of chemotherapy, improve
surgical outcomes, regulate the autonomic nervous system, and dramatically
alter people’s experience of physical and emotional pain associated with
illness."

The article links, with the phrase "a number of studies" to what seems to be
one study [1]. In this study it looks like they surveyed people who regularly
attended reiki practitioners about their trips and found that these people
reported positive results.

This doesn't seem like a very compelling study to me. Of course people who go
to Reiki will think that it works. That doesn't mean that it does work. People
think that placebos work.

I'd like to see a study where half of the Reiki guys are people put through a
Reiki training course and the other half are people taught to do the opposite
of the intended techniques.

On the one hand, I can see the value of a placebo like institution where
people wave their hands and say and do soothing things, and if that makes you
feel better, then great. I don't think we need to pretend like this is some
kind of mystery though, except as it is a specific case of the more general
placebo mystery - which is interesting.

Maybe they go this direction in the article. I stopped reading after it became
clear they don't have good evidence that Reiki works.

This also reminds me of the story of an astrologer who genuinely believed in
astrology and practiced it according to complicated rules. Somehow he makes a
mistake or starts to doubt things, and starts giving people their astrology
report (or whatever it would be called) as the opposite of what it should be.
Sure enough, the opposite analysis worked just as well as the "correct"
analysis.

1 -
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407)

~~~
chrischen
If a placebo works _generally_ then it works. Isn't all psychotherapy in a way
just a placebo?

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
> Isn't all psychotherapy in a way just a placebo?

Absolutely not.

It is one thing to just give someone a sugar pill or a random ritual and tell
them "this will make you feel better". That's placebo. (Not saying it never
works, just that's the definition of placebo.)

It is another thing completely to help people realize which thought patterns
and which conscious focus and which memories keep them stuck in old loops.
Which subconscious patterns and habits make them miserable. Which parts of
their current world model are not working for them and help them actually
transform the way they think about themselves, view themselves, feel
themselves, the way they operate in the world on a day-to-day basis. That's
psychotherapy. It is literally changing the software of the human mind.

Now there might be fake psychotherapists out there who don't know what they
are doing and are limited to the effects of placebo in their practices. But
that does not mean that one thing is the same as the other.

I can also see how there could be cases where a person receives a placebo, for
some reason (the magic behind placebo) it makes them feel exceptionally well,
and they use this push of energy to transform some part of their worldview on
their own and so they keep some long-term effects of it. This doesn't either
make one thing the same as the other, and it does not happen so often either.

~~~
eru
It's not completely clear whether there are any psychotherapies that are
better than placebos.

Though you have to be careful how you define your placebo.

One approach would be a sugar pill. But the patient would know that this is
not psychotherapy. So it doesn't work as a proper placebo.

A slightly better example is a heartwarming chat with a high status individual
who is not schooled in any psychotherapy. Say a random professor.

See eg
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict)

~~~
anbende
You've linked to the dodo bird hypothesis, but the dodo bird hypothesis does
NOT claim that all psychotherapy is placebo. It claims that all or nearly all
established evidence-supported treatments given by trained professionals
produce very similar outcomes.

If you read deeper in the page you linked on the subject, it goes on to the
actual conclusion that the common factors of psychotherapy - empathy, positive
regard, strategic alliance, and others - are predictive of psychotherapeutic
outcome across therapies. In addition, it is shown that many key features of
modern psychotherapies including awareness of one's thoughts and emotions are
essentially universal therapeutic components.

In the book on the subject by Wampold and Imel, they found real and
significant difference between therapists on their ability to produce outcome
based on these common factors. So while modern therapeutic models may be
indistinguishable in terms of outcome, modern therapists are not. And there IS
such a thing as better vs worse therapy. And this is an ongoing research area.

~~~
eru
I was alluding to these concerns.

To be more explicit: it's a bit of an issue of definition.

I was going by the rule of thumb that whatever your homeopath or
acupuncturists would also do, would count as placebo from the point of view of
psychotherapy.

And, yes, those people employ many of the same common factors. And different
people have different amount of skills in employing those. (Or creating
different outcomes in general.)

If you want to call that placebo or not, is up to you.

There's also very interesting research into what makes effective placebos, and
how eg cultural context influences that.

From what I've read (sham) surgery is more effective than an injection which
is more effective than a pill. And more expensive placebos are more effective
than cheaper ones.

If memory serves right, whether big or small pills have a bigger effect
depended on country. (The hypothesis was that some cultures believed smaller
pills are more highly concentrated, whereas others believed bigger is better.)

------
mmhsieh
Human touch does trigger positive neurochemical cascades. We might understand
how all this works much better in the future, perhaps we big improvements in
in vivo imaging of biological processes. Maybe some future version of CARS
microscopy that does not fry the cell; better theory on multi-scale processes
in human biology; and much better fMRI than what we have now.

~~~
zdragnar
I think "can" is better than "does trigger" here. I know I am not alone in
genuinely disliking physical contact with anyone at all, including strangers,
friends, parents, pretty much anyone other than my wife.

I put up with it for ease of social pleasantries, but otherwise am much more
comfortable not touching than touching. Massages are at best pointless and at
worst counterproductive for me.

------
nprateem
I've been attuned to level 2 reiki. I've also received it a few times both in
person and from a distance. And stone me, but I felt stuff every time. The
first time I had it from a master on my crown it was like something pouring
down through my body. It felt electrical and great.

I've no idea how the distance stuff works, although I've been told how to do
it. Well, I've been given explanations about the 'all-is-one, time and space
is an illusion' stuff, but I'm still waiting on that experience for myself.
But now my mind is well and truly open.

~~~
balfirevic
If you can reliably distinguish whether the distant practitioner is doing
anything to you or not, you should be able to get yourself a million dollars
[0].

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge)

~~~
mcv
It's entirely possible that he can still hear the distant practitioner, and
that the practitioner's words are enough to trigger the effect.

If it even works without hearing the distant practitioner, then yes, go win
that million dollars.

~~~
balfirevic
True. By "distant" I got the impression that the practitioner is in another
building or even another city, but that might not be the case.

~~~
mcv
It might well be the case, but we've got telephones and even more advanced
communication tech these days.

------
ZeljkoS
> Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

It doesn't. Intro section on Wikipedia [0] already lists five studies that
concluded it doesn't work: "Clinical research does not show reiki to be
effective as a treatment for any medical condition, including cancer,[4][5]
diabetic neuropathy,[6] or anxiety and depression,[7] therefore it should not
replace conventional medical treatment. There is no proof of the effectiveness
of reiki therapy compared to placebo. Studies reporting positive effects have
had methodological flaws.[2]"

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reiki&oldid=94822...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reiki&oldid=948223368)

[2] Lee, MS; Pittler, MH; Ernst, E (2008). "Effects of reiki in clinical
practice: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials". International
Journal of Clinical Practice (Systematic Review). 62 (6): 947–54.
doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x. PMID 18410352. "Most trials suffered
from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design
and poor reporting....In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest
that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of
reiki remains unproven."

[4] Russell J; Rovere A, eds. (2009). "Reiki". American Cancer Society
Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (2nd ed.).
American Cancer Society. pp. 243–45. ISBN 9780944235713.

[5] "Reiki | Complementary and alternative therapy | Cancer Research UK".
about-cancer.cancerresearchuk.org. Retrieved 2020-02-12.

[6] Bril, V; England, J; Franklin, GM; Backonja, M; et al. (2011). "Evidence-
based guideline: Treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: Report of the
American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and
Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation" (PDF). Neurology. 76 (20): 1758–65.
doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182166ebe. PMC 3100130. PMID 21482920.

[7] Joyce, Janine; Herbison, G Peter (2007-10-17), "Reiki treatment for
psychological symptoms", in The Cochrane Collaboration (ed.), Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. CD006833,
doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006833

~~~
dcx
An interesting point TFA makes is that it doesn't have to beat placebo: the
placebo effect itself provides therapeutic benefit!

> Ted Kaptchuk, a Harvard Medical School professor and one of the lead
> researchers, theorizes that the placebo effect is, in the words of the Times
> article, “a biological response to an act of caring; that somehow the
> encounter itself calls forth healing and that the more intense and focused
> it is, the more healing it evokes.”

I dug up an article in which he explores this further and it's an angle I
haven't considered before [1]:

> More recently, however, experts have concluded that reacting to a placebo is
> not proof that a certain treatment doesn't work, but rather that another,
> non-pharmacological mechanism may be present.

> How placebos work is still not quite understood, but it involves a complex
> neurobiological reaction that includes everything from increases in feel-
> good neurotransmitters, like endorphins and dopamine, to greater activity in
> certain brain regions linked to moods, emotional reactions, and self-
> awareness. All of it can have therapeutic benefit. "The placebo effect is a
> way for your brain to tell the body what it needs to feel better," says
> Kaptchuk.

> But placebos are not all about releasing brainpower. You also need the
> ritual of treatment. [...] You receive all kinds of exotic pills and undergo
> strange procedures. All this can have a profound impact on how the body
> perceives symptoms because you feel you are getting attention and care."

If reiki can evoke this effect consistently, reliably and cheaply at scale
(and this is believable, because according to TFA, the lot of the practice is
just physical touch in ways that the body might perceive as caring?) - perhaps
there actually is value in it?

[1] [https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-
th...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-
effect)

~~~
rikelmens
Yeah, but how does placebo actually work? :D

If it works, why don't we use it for our benefit?

~~~
yourapostasy
> ...but how does placebo actually work?

Whatever the mechanism factors turn out to be, I would not be at all surprised
if it involves areas of study that clinical studies currently dismiss as
unimportant.

> If it works, why don't we use it for our benefit?

Currently difficult to control outcomes because we understand so little of it,
and a possibility that it would depress the financial results of a lot of
current US "medical/healthcare industry" stakeholders if it turns out for
example, having a doting Israeli grandmother dropping by each day with
steaming hot matzo ball soup with some unmentionable ingredient that still
tastes bitter as hell, a handful of friends calling with jokes, and a couple
hours a day in the sauna works cheaper and just as well as a $200 antiviral
prescription.

------
GlenTheMachine
I'm fascinated that, as far as I can tell, there's a lot of disagreement here
about whether this is "mumbo jumbo" or not, when nobody is addressing the
major aspect that differentiates reiki from other non-traditional medicines --
which is that it is based on _touch_.

We're social animals. I've never had reiki but I have spent some time in
hospitals. You know what you NEVER get in a hospital? Someone touching you in
a way that isn't associated with a (usually painful) medical procedure. There
is literally no aspect of hospital life that accommodates human sociality. So
the idea that someone comes in to your hospital room and touches you gently
and that makes you feel better? OF COURSE it makes you feel better. In the
same way that therapy dogs make you feel better. It's social touch. It's
pleasant. It addresses an incredibly deep-seated need in the human psyche, one
that if it is not met eventually results in - if nothing else - significant
mental health issues.

So it seems to me that the right scientific study to do here is not whether
reiki improves on (say) chemotherapy outcomes; it's whether any sort of touch
therapy, including therapy animals or just regular hugs from family, results
in improved outcomes.

~~~
fooblat
Only it is not based on touch. The "Reiki Master" quoted in the article says
it works just as well at a distance. He also claims that it works on animals
and plants and that many cats can perform Reiki on their owners.

~~~
GlenTheMachine
So I'm pretty skeptical of the distance aspect and the plant aspect. I'm
actually _not_ skeptical of the "animals" claim.

Cats cuddle with you. They enjoy being petted. So do dogs. And so do humans! I
have a dog whose primary pleasure in life is snuggling up to you on the couch
and getting petted. This is not surprising; dogs, like humans, are social
animals. And this is a symbiotic relationship. It's pretty well known that
therapy dogs significantly reduce stress, including physical markers of stress
such as blood pressure and cortisol levels.

~~~
fooblat
I love animals and I agree that Dog Therapy is effective for the reasons you
state. I fail to see what any of that has to to with Reiki and it's claims of
tapping into the "Universal Source" and manipulation of "Healing Energy".

Hugs are also beneficial and cause documented positive chemical changes in our
bodies. No imaginary mystical forces or increased "vibrations" needed.

~~~
naravara
>Hugs are also beneficial and cause documented positive chemical changes in
our bodies. No imaginary mystical forces or increased "vibrations" needed.

It's just a different theoretical framework for describing an observed
phenomenon. Even if it's not technically correct, it can still be a good
enough cognitive heuristic to help people intuit what's happening or how to
influence it.

Think about it kind of like Newtonian mechanics, which are also not quite
right but make predictions that are generally close enough for most of what we
do in everyday life and much easier for people to work with intuitively.

------
nprateem
Really there are only 2 positions here:

1\. All this spiritual mumbo-jumbo is a crock of shit

2\. It's real

While it's fashionable to think 1 is correct, it is just possible that 2 is in
fact our reality. I mean quantum physics shows us the universe _is_ weird. Not
bothering to try to find evidence of 2 and dismissing it out of hand is as
counterproductive as people who blindly accept 2 with no evidence.

No doubt some of you are thinking of replying along the lines of 'well you
should waste your life investigating whether an invisible spaghetti monster
lives in the sky, or whether it's turtles all the way down, etc'. To those I'd
say had there been several thousands of years worth of people recounting their
own experiences of either a flying spaghetti monster or turtles all the way
down I'd agree with you.

I see it as little different to the UFO stuff - mocked for years, but actually
if you look into it there's probably something to it, based on the weight and
volume of eyewitness reports. But it's just easier to not risk looking foolish
and dismiss it out of hand instead of investigating it for yourself, isn't it?

~~~
mcv
There's a middle ground: the spiritual mumbo-jumbo is a crock of shit, but the
treatment still works because of the touching, the patient taking time for
this to relax, and maybe the patient believing that something is being done
about their pain or other feelings of unease. It's possible that the theory is
wrong but the practice still works.

------
JoeAltmaier
Why? Easy - just phoning outpatients 2 days later helps with reported post-
operative pain and adjustment. Its the human factor. We respond to touch and
concern.

Note its not quite placebo - because it provokes actual physiological changes.

My local hospital has a Yoga class for seniors waiting for their Residency
postings. Helps a lot to survive the stress. Nothing surprising about that
either.

------
TheHeretic12
I am enjoying the comment section here just as much as the article. Not many
here will pull more comments than points. I cant see the word "Reiki" without
hearing "URAMESHI!"

To me, most new-age medicine is an exercise in low grade mental programming.
By forming and guiding behavior under close supervision, positive
reinforcement helps to remake harmful neural short-circuits. By giving your
treatment a name, a method, and a history, you are creating a corrective
program that is then delicately implanted in the patient, then activated in
the physical sessions. If coercive brainwashing and mind-control is black
magic, what these people and other similar healers do can best be called white
magic. Braincleaning. In the article, they especially note that these
treatments are effective on problems that cannot be fixed with surgery or
medicine, thus are almost totally in the mind. There is such a thing as
psychosomatic illness, and the nervous system doesnt end at the spinal cord.
Your muscles have a simple, low-level form of memory in the patterns of nerves
and motor neurons, and this extends throughout the body. Sometimes these
systems get badly imbalanced, and the body's failsafe mechanisms, the
sympathetic, parasympathetic, lymphatic and immune systems cannot correct it.
Rolfing, chiropractice, and massage techniques act physically on this system
to reset muscles and nerves, putting them back into line. By combining a
physical regime with psychological correction, you can clear the nervous
system of stubborn low-grade problems.

True, in a double-blind experimental setup, it may be difficult or impossible
to reproduce the results. This is because the results hinge on a relationship
between patient and practitioner, the experimental setup tends to nullify the
methods that this relationship advances on. Its programming, brainwashing, but
to benefit the person; not just turning them into a cultist.

------
einpoklum
The article asks:

> “Why do we have a problem accepting when somebody says, ‘I feel better; that
> helped’?”

And the answer is:

1\. Because they are often sent to say that by interested parties and maybe
have their own biases (e.g. hoping the treatment to succeed, because that
means their life will improve).

2\. Because the people who don't feel better don't typically go around telling
you about it.

3\. Because feeling is subjective and fluctuates; and while it has its own
significance, it is often independent of the state of underlying physiological
conditions.

4\. Because of past (collective) experience with many kinds of supposed cures
or treatments which ended up not helping, or marginally helping, or having
detrimental effects which weren't taken into account.

------
Nursie
Or for a cynical (but evidence based) rebuttal to this bullshit, have a look
here - [https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/03/16/reiki-in-the-
atla...](https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/03/16/reiki-in-the-atlantic/)

It's just another nonsense, unscientific, 'energy healing' pile of woo trying
to get itself integrated into medicine.

------
jspash
Does reiki work on animals? Say, a turtle with a heart condition. Or a worm
that was accidentally cut in half with a spade. If so, then I might become a
believer. If not, it’s woo.

~~~
Angostura
Does the turtle have stress or is it depressed, feeling isolated and alone?
Does stroking a depressed dog make the dog feel better?

------
zajio1am
Or it does not:

No, editors of The Atlantic, reiki does not work:
[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-editors-of-the-
atlantic-...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-editors-of-the-atlantic-
reiki-does-not-work/)

------
devit
It's just a form of guided meditation where you focus your attention on the
practitioner's touch, so it does exactly what meditation does (which is
potentially relaxation, reduction in anxiety, reduction in pain perception,
improvement of mental health).

The claims that it cures specific non-mental ailments are of course bullshit,
but the meditation part is real, although you can get the same effect from any
other meditative practice.

------
ur-whale
[https://archive.is/Li75A](https://archive.is/Li75A)

------
KONAir
People trying to control their emotions succeed in varying degrees.
Unbeliviable, how is this even possible?

------
docgonzo
I feel this is closely related to Therapeutic Touch. While these practices may
be generated by a placebo affect, I would argue that there is a difference
between feeling better and being better. Therapeutic touch was largely debunk
by a 10 year with a simple experiment that blinded the practitioners as to
whether they were applying their touch to a patient or not using a piece of
cardboard [0]. The practitioners could not tell the difference. Interestingly,
the author is the youngest person to publish a research article. Science based
medicine has a nice response to this article as well [1]. [0]
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/187390](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/187390)
[1] [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-editors-of-the-
atlantic-...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-editors-of-the-atlantic-
reiki-does-not-work/)

------
AllegedAlec
> For 200 dollars, what is the Placebo effect?

------
ilaksh
Maybe there is a way to use this concept of reducing stress with a gesture
without invoking supernatural gibberish.

I mean to me it seems totally plausible that having a person there that is
trying to help you in and of itself can reduce stress. Also if they touch you,
that seems like it could definitely reduce stress also.

Or just the psychological effect of knowing that there are people who care,
that seems like it could have at least a minor lasting effect on stress.

The question is can that basic concept work without the mumbojumbo. Or could
you sell it without talking about magical powers.

~~~
gnramires
> The question is can that basic concept work without the mumbojumbo

I used to think like that too, but I'm more open that sometimes a story, any
story, allegory can be helpful in many contexts, by creating an identity, an
aesthetic quality of the thing; help us conceptualize it. Since this in
particular is about psychological phenomenon, I think it perhaps shouldn't be
discarded. The question would be (if the story is an important part of a
working practice) how to keep the story from being confused with fact. I think
that's achievable (treat it as a mythology, or something). I don't think
anyone would defend the banning of telling stories to children or fiction
movies.

~~~
waterhouse
Surely there's a way to believe something important and true with the right
emotional valence. Consider the story I laid out in a nearby comment: "A
competent, trusted person loves you and is laying hands on you in a kindly way
to heal you. When this happened to our ancestors, they were in a safe position
and their bodies needed healing; under these circumstances, there was no risk
of further injury and no need to worry about other needs (because they will be
attended to), which means the body should turn down its immune response and
focus on healing. Evolution carried this lesson down into your body. I will be
the competent, trusted person who loves you, and I will lay kindly hands on
you, and your body will respond instinctively and heal."

It doesn't need to be any more (or less) magical than what happens in theatre.
The actors do their best to live their roles, to do the things and feel the
emotions their characters would feel, and they let the audience see it—perhaps
playing it up a little, because the audience is tens of feet away. I believe
there are at least some in the service industry that have a related "I'm
playing a role, of one who is delighted to help my great customer, to the best
of my ability" ethos.

~~~
gnramires
I guess it could be analogous to watching say a circus (say Cirque du Soleil)
presentation with a story and a presentation without a story -- one with just
actors doing impressive stunts, the other with a narrative, clothings, a
coherent aesthetic, but still centered on doing impressive stunts, movements,
etc. The story-free might be interesting, some would feel there is something
missing (I would), the stunts themselves not as remarkable as they could be.

There is always a story and an aesthetic -- if you chose to tell no story,
you'll simply be clinging to the aesthetic of modern hospitals (with innocuous
minimalist environments), hospital or casual clothing, etc. It just may not be
sufficiently captivating, at least not for everyone.

At least it's worth research and experimentation instead of dismissal as
"unscientific" or "woo woo".

To give other examples, imagine hospital clowns (hired for kids) without clown
clothes or being identified as 'clowns', but rather 'entertainment
therapists'. Possibly lame, just not the same.

------
Tepix
The article states:

> _Various non-Western practices have become popular complements to
> conventional medicine in the past few decades, chief among them yoga,
> meditation, and acupuncture, all of which have been the subject of rigorous
> scientific studies that have established and explained their effectiveness._

This is wrong as far as acupuncture is concerned. Wikipedia states:

 _Acupuncture has been researched extensively; as of 2013, there were almost
1,500 randomized controlled trials on PubMed with "acupuncture" in the title.
The results of reviews of acupuncture's efficacy, however, have been
inconclusive._

... and also ...:

 _A 2014 review in Nature Reviews Cancer found that "contrary to the claimed
mechanism of redirecting the flow of qi through meridians, researchers usually
find that it generally does not matter where the needles are inserted, how
often (that is, no dose-response effect is observed), or even if needles are
actually inserted._

------
boffinism
Tl;dr: placebos are great, we should use them more.

------
Digit-Al
I've read a small fraction of the comments here and just want to add my
thoughts. Please bear in mind that I am ill educated, but well read, so have
patchy knowledge at best.

The article stated that Reiki can have beneficial effects and has no harmful
side effects, meaning that it can be useful as a supplement to conventional
medicine. This seems reasonable to me.

Beyond that, we have all sorts of people making all sorts of claims about it
in the comments here. The problem, as far as I'm concerned, is if you make a
claim without a shred of evidence to back it up then you are practising
religion, not science.

As far as I can tell, the best anyone can offer so far are flimsy hypotheses,
with very few suggestions as to how to test them. And then they try to claim
this as some actual truth.

Subtle energy? It may very well be, but you can't really offer a hypothesis
and then claim it as fact.

I think people would be a little more open to these ideas if those proposing
them were to be more honest and say "we have no actual idea how this works,
but I'm working under the hypothesis that [x] and hope that someone can come
up with some way to test if this is true at some point in the future".

There are some strong claims that patients that are given more "care" recover
better than those who aren't. For example, I watched a really interesting
program a while ago about using the placebo effect to help people with back
problems. They took a large group of people who had ongoing back troubles and
told them they were giving them a new medicine to help with back pain. Half
were given the medicine and half were given the placebo, except they were all
given the placebo because there was no new medicine. On top of that half out
of each group were given very short, brusque, medical appointments (as we are
normally used to these days) and half were given longer appointments with
doctors that spent time talking to them and listening to them.

Despite everyone being given a placebo, some made really dramatic recoveries,
and many made at least minor improvements. And those who were cared for more
seemed to make better recoveries than those who were given short appointments.

There is so much about the placebo effect and how we can heal ourselves that
we do not understand even in the slightest yet.

I could give you carrots mashed in rabbit urine and swear blind that it has
been proven to cure headaches. If you reluctantly took it and your headache
was gone half an hour later, well maybe it would have gone anyway, maybe it
went because you believed me, and maybe I got lucky and carrots mashed in
rabbit urine really does cure a headache. I know where my bet would be though.
(Please don't try carrots mashed in rabbits urine, I'm not even sure it would
be safe for human consumption.)

------
ojosilva
My dad has spent almost all of his free time, for the last 40-50 yrs, as an
amateur pseudo-scientist, including spiritism and syncretism, practicing a
good subset of beliefs and rituals spliced from Christian, African and Asian
religions.

He has been a part of different communities or groups at times (kardecists,
candomblé and buddhists to name a few), as a teacher and practitioner (ie.
"medium" and "doctor") but never did any of it for money (or power), afaik,
but as a spiritually fulfilling hobby. Besides practicing things like issuing
homeopathic treatments to the sick, having a very lively shrine at our
different homes, reading and teaching at study sessions, and a hack-load of
strange rituals, he also did plenty of charity and fundraisers for the needy
in our different communities.

Now he's semi-retired and focus mostly on Reiki.

I grew up believing our home-equivalent of a "religion" (my mom is also a
believer) to be the absolute and undeniable truth. It took me years to unlearn
and today I'm quite the unattached, worldly person I've become.

After watching dozens of people benefit or suffer under these rituals, is that
there IS more good in it than bad. In the case of Reiki specifically, it's the
"science" of _comfort_. The amazing feeling of human proximity, human touch
and humane social interaction is very energizing and therapeutical. Reiki is
different from mindfulness and meditation (which my dad taught me when I was
7) but not unlike them, is tied to healing activities practiced since ancient
times and has many psychological, or even evolutionary, explanations on where
its benefits come from. But its science is not linked in any way to quantum
physics or energy as such. There's just no way my dad is _actually_ sending me
Reiki from 8000 miles away! He does try, though.

Today I accept their beliefs, as I accept Reiki, and my only gripe is how my
parents judgement was, at times, completely impaired by their faith, as they
use it as a substitute (not a complement) to real science, in particular, as a
proxy for a visit to a doctor. Or an "Earth doctor" like my dad used to say.
As they've aged, they've also tuned down their rhetoric as only "Earth
doctors" can install pacemakers.

And that's the real damage Reiki, as many other treatments, inflicts: it can
easily become a proxy therapy to real medicine and science, out of fear,
money, conspiracies or plain dumbness. Maybe the way forward would be for
(Western) science to embrace the study of spiritual therapies, so it can be
understood and applied by the medical profession, which would help hinder
obscurity and quackery. But I guess that's just what makes them appealing to
so many people.

------
seibelj
It doesn't work, no more than placebo or straightforwards meditation does.

~~~
itsdrewmiller
That is addressed in the article:

 _Skeptics are quick to point to the placebo effect: The body’s capacity to
heal itself after receiving only the simulated experience of medication or
therapy is well documented. But precisely because that capacity is so well
documented, reflexive dismissal of the placebo effect as “fake medicine”
demands scrutiny—and is now receiving it. In late 2018, The New York Times
Magazine reported on a group of scientists whose research suggests that
responsiveness to placebos, rather than a mere trick of the mind, can be
traced to a complex series of measurable physiological reactions in the body;
certain genetic makeups in patients even correlate with greater placebo
response._

I think the idea that we have a biological response to people showing they
care about us is plausible. That would suggest it might also have a
different/stronger effect than meditation. I would be very surprised if there
was a measurable difference between "real" and theatrical Reiki, though.

~~~
heisenzombie
I believe that _most_ discussions about the placebo effect are muddled by
whether regression-to-the-mean effects are included or not. [1]

When one is comparing a treatment with a "placebo", it makes sense to include
"regression-to-the-mean" effects, since you're obviously looking to do better
than that with your treatment.

However, when people ask "What are the biological causes of the placebo
effect?", they should really be excluding "regression-to-the-mean" effects
since there's no causal link between the "placebo treatment" and the
regression part of the outcome.

If one looks for a placebo effect and EXCLUDES regression-to-the-mean, the
effect sizes tend to be small to nonexistent, which makes discussion about
their physiological causes a lot more shaky.

[1] [http://www.dcscience.net/2015/12/11/placebo-effects-are-
weak...](http://www.dcscience.net/2015/12/11/placebo-effects-are-weak-
regression-to-the-mean-is-the-main-reason-ineffective-treatments-appear-to-
work/)

~~~
henearkr
Your concern disappears if your method is to compare, on one hand, difference
between treatment and nothing, and on the other hand, difference between
placebo and nothing. To only compare treatment and placebo directly is of
course a methodological error.

PS: By the way, I'd advocate to scrutinize the biological bases of the placebo
effect, in order to 1/ use it instead of trying to ignore it 2/ predict
accurately its effect and thus lighten a lot the burden of test plans (ideally
the tests could not need anymore to be double blind -- would save lots of time
and money)

~~~
heisenzombie
my understanding (see references in linked page) is that when one does what
you said and compare placebo to “nothing”, almost the entire effect goes away.

~~~
fooblat
How would you propose a blinded study will work to compare between a Placebo
treatment and no treatment?

~~~
henearkr
To compare placebo vs nothing (i.e. no placebo), you don't need the double-
blind requirement. Because the group receiving nothing is not receiving the
placebo, and thus does not (and should not) benefit from any illusion of
having being treated.

------
olliej
placebo.

------
battery_cowboy
Who cares? Honestly, stop giving a crap about what other people do to make
themselves happy, just don't try it if you don't think it will work. If no one
is getting hurt, one person leaves happier and one person leaves richer, then
it's a win-win-win (win-win, plus a win for society as a whole).

~~~
jgrpf
A lot of people are scammed though by Shamans and the like. And often times
they do not leave that much happier but emotionally dependant and sometimes
even broke. I've seen it plenty of times and think it's absolutely immoral.

~~~
battery_cowboy
True, but that's not as common as the vast, vast majority of people who just
spend a comfortable amount of money on these things and become happier for it.
We need protection against those bad actors, perhaps, but there will always be
scammers in any profession. I also think those scams are small-scale in
comparison to the vast "scam" that modern medicine has become, for Americans
at least. Sure, the shaman can take your life savings, but he cannot
additionally stick you with loans for whatever amount he wants that you cannot
discharge via any means whatsoever. At least you just stand to lose
everything, not lose everything and then some.

------
freepor
Western medicine is, IMHO, too averse to exploiting the very real, very
powerful, placebo effect. To get a treatment approved you need to prove that
it's not a placebo, which excludes, of course... effective placebos.

In India, for example, a lot of family doctors don't see their job as curing
the disease, but as giving the patient a feeling of agency and control over
their lives. Letting them feel like they're doing something. So when a patient
comes to them, the feel that their job is to give them a pill, and a pill is
what they will get. If they have a treatable condition they'll get a pill that
treats the condition, otherwise they'll get a random herbal tincture or
similar, something foul-tasting that gives the patient whatever relief the
placebo effect can deliver.

~~~
pas
No, clinical studies work by showing statistically significantly greater
efficacy than the placebo (sham treatment) group. Placebo can be anything.
Just as the treatment.

But it turns out that placebo is basically the measure of how much the patient
believes in the treatment. And that correlates with price, attention of staff,
length of treatment, etc.

~~~
mcv
That's exactly the point: new medicines are tested against a placebo rather
than against no treatment at all, because the placebo does have an effect: the
placebo effect. It is an effect, and it can be leveraged to make people feel
better. Is that quackery? Or is that making people feel better?

~~~
pas
The placebo effect is already exploited day by day in every hospital, clinic
and small primary care physician office.

The problem is the whole marketing narrative of Big Pharma is bad makes people
less susceptible to that placebo effect, because they want more. But instead
of paying for simply more time with a real doctor they want something special.

People want magic so bad. They already want just one more test to make sure,
just a pill to fix it, make it better, to make it go away, to manage it.

And sure, who could blame people we know all of this about DNA and virus spike
proteins and MRSA and so on, but our treatment options are not fundamentally
available at that level. We are still far from being able to whip up a vaccine
just from a drop of covalescent blood. Or from just the RNA of a virus.

And people are very easy to fool into the narrative that there is something
fundamentally different that actually works. Ancient Tibetian knowledge.
Energy, chakra healing, whatever.

And nobody stops anyone from going to the FDA and showing how better their
treatment is than a pill. Or how their treatment plus a pill works wonders.

Yet "alternative medicine" doesn't do this. Why? Because they don't want to
spend money on that. They like it in the shadows.

------
uslic001
Magical thinking and placebo effect. I don't see any Reiki masters on the
front line fighting COVID-19 because they know it has no real effect.

~~~
fortran77
Actually, if you google, you'll see everyone from Chiropractors to
acupuncturists to reiki practitioners claiming they can help. (The most
outlandish claims are coming from the chiropractors!)

~~~
jayjay71
Fun fact: at least in the United States, chiropractors do not have medical
degrees and so they are not licensed doctors.

~~~
sneak
Yet it is still somehow legal for them to market themselves as “Dr. $NAME”.
It’s baffling.

------
sumofi
Garbage :-(

Believe in Placebo believe in Nocebo as well.

Where do you draw the line? I draw it at unscientific.

What do you think has all this shit done for our society?

Reike, antivax, flat Earth, akkupunkture, traditional Chinese medicine,
homeopathy, fake news.

It's all bullshit. If you as a human just believe in stuff without effidence
you are dangerous.

Climate change? Oh no someone told me it's a hoax to get us to buy solar
power. How do you argument with those people? You can't.

~~~
loopz
Some people have a psychological condition they get sick from things they
_think_ makes them sick, like wireless and 5G. I don't judge the merits, but
it can be anything and sometimes rooted in the psychological makeup.

Your failure to argument is just a failure to listen.

~~~
sumofi
I did mention the Nocebo effect.

And I do think talking to others or having professional help to a normal
psychologist is absolutely okay, the right thing / a good thing.

~~~
loopz
Yes, my last point was meant generally (can't edit anymore). Ie. we often tend
to try to convince others with long-winded arguments, while what may be needed
is just listening and learning different perspectives. It rarely works well
that you can actually "convert" people. When that succeeds, the ground for
critical thinking tend to get even worse, ie. in closed or cult-like groups!

More important than the positions we take, is the critical introspective
thinking that leads us to along the way (free thinking).

------
chipmunks369
Quantum physics "observer effect" influencing the body molecules to improve
the health..simple

------
ghthor
It can possibly work, if you open your mind to more then what's possible in
the materialist scientific viewpoint.

~~~
tempestn
I don't know what a "materialist scientific viewpoint" is, but I'm not sure
how one would seek to understand the world from other than a scientific
viewpoint. You'd just be guessing based on intuition. If there's something
that's real, it should be possible to investigate it in a scientific manner.
For example, you could imagine a study comparing the effects of a real Reiki
session to a fake one performed by an actor with no Reiki training. Depending
on the results, that might give scientific evidence (not definitive proof, of
course) suggesting either that there is a not-yet-understood element to the
Reiki practice that does have a real effect, or that the effects are
tangential, perhaps due to relaxation, placebo effect, or endorphins. Either
way, further studies could be designed to delve further into understanding.
That's science.

~~~
jlokier
I agree with you (and upvoted).

However wish to point out that, if the study gave a clear result, great you
have something to work with, but if it gave a negative result, that wouldn't
prove Reiki per se doesn't work.

Instead it would prove that _Reiki training is not necessary_ to obtain the
same outcome in this setting. Which would also be great as something to work
with.

But because of logical possibilities like "actors perfoming the actions they
are told to do automatically draw on natural Reiki ability that we all have"
(among others), it would be incorrect to rule out Reiki itself from a result
like that without a much tighter definition of what is being ruled out.

(And people would likely argue over such definitions and talk past one another
while doing so.)

Generally: Proving negatives is hard, and requires us to describe carefully
what we're really proving, which is invariably narrower than we would like
(non-generalisability of negatives).

That's one of the difficulties with studying this sort of thing in a genuinely
scientific way.

~~~
tempestn
Yes, I totally agree with the challenges you describe. And certainly, there
are always going to be further avenues of study, whatever the result. For
instance, I'm certainly not a Reiki expert, but my understanding is that
chakras play a role. One could perhaps narrow the study I described above by
having one practitioner intentionally misplace the chakras, while keeping
everything else constant, to study specifically whether those locations are
indeed meaningful.

If you wanted, you could also approach studying it from another direction, and
try to measure the transfer of energy that supposedly occurs. There would be
various ways to go about that. Obviously I seriously doubt that a rigorous
experiment would actually show an energy transfer from the practitioner, but
if it did, and no flaws could be found in the measurement techniques, that
would be pretty interesting!

------
reilly3000
Empiricism asserts that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
Skeptics have the audacity to deny the experience of others, relying only upon
that which is measurable by an external apparatus. I hear people describe
things as "not scientific" which amounts to willful ignorance- the opposite of
science. Hard science doesn't assert there are human 5 senses; it merely
demonstrates that there are 5(ish) taxonomies for which measurement is
currently feasible.

Taking a position as a denier means one is essentially unwilling to expend the
energy requisite to study a phenomenon. In our infinitely complex plane we
inhabit, that is a valid strategy, given the finite energy that one can expend
during their lifetime (something on the order of 16,500 Kw/h). Passively
denying a subject is a low energy task, and only risks the opportunity cost of
non-participation of something beneficial or of avoiding harm. Actively
denying a subject is expensive. Denying climate change, or a spherical Earth,
or the existence of Boston, MA, USA takes tremendous mental gymnastics, and
sometimes profound time and physical resources.

My own experience with Reiki is limited, but memorable. I was standing in the
4th floor of an office near Pioneer Square in Seattle, chatting with a
colleague. He told me that outside of development work, he practices Reiki. I
had questions for him about it, but he insisted it was easier to show than
tell. He placed his hand on my head and I felt powerful change in my state of
mind and a sensation I haven't really experienced before or since. It was
like... "wow" \- then off to play ping-pong. It certainly gave me a wider
aperture on what this life can offer, but I haven't chosen to pursue Reiki in
any further depth.

You, from afar without knowing me at all, can feel free to label my experience
as placebo, say I'm irrational, or deny that others could have a similar
experience. Just know that as you're doing so, you're rejecting empiricism and
the essence of science- which is to have more questions than answers.

------
jekrok0n
I’ve studied this and made a throwaway since wow something I know on HN: It
works like aspirin works, or other temporary fixes that get chemically
flushed. But no I’m not gonna get all nerdy for you. google.com if you’re
actually interested, not just looking for shallow socializing

Touch lifts our spirits by instigating chemical change in our body.

It’s like saying ow or fuck in surprise, which has been shown to help us
process a rising action in our system.

We can manually hold muscles and create issues in our body. It’s not a shock
to find people with issues from years of muscle tension they didn’t realize
was there.

When you’re doing Reiki it’s ok to process and we emotionally do

What a shock in an uptight Puritan culture that’s all about how correct or
theories and work are, some old school caveman niceness makes us feel better
in a real way.

~~~
clort
If you have studied this then you should use your usual identity with its
established credibility to state your views. State them honestly and you will
be treated honestly, is my experience of HN.

I don't believe in Reiki or stuff like this in general though I do appreciate
the placebo effect and think that personal interaction has a benefit which is
difficult to measure. If people wish to be spiritual then that may be good for
them but that doesn't mean that spirits exist or have any measurable effect on
the physical world. However I had a partner some years ago who was Reiki
trained and did very much believe in it so as a result I have experienced
Reiki and found that the effects were not clearly undetectable. For instance,
though my partner did not touch me at all during sessions, I could feel the
same things that I was being told. I am specifically referring to the 'energy
flow' which 'channels itself to the most needed area' which I could feel the
heat of this burning in the same area that my partner told me was problematic
which was all around my shoulder and collar bone. Interestingly, about six
months later I had a problem with a dislocated clavicle for no apparent reason
(just woke up like it) though I had no treatment for this and have had no
further issues for 20 years.

Anyway, apparently the person who started ('discovered') the modern Reiki
movement found that his power to heal was not valued in general so he
formulated the modern system where you must pay a master to be advanced
through the levels (I forget but I think there are three levels) and stated
that this should be an increasingly significant payment and those who are
activated like this should not give Reiki for free. Now, this whole thing
sounds so much like a multi-level marketing scam it is unreal but at least my
partner was not involved in this aspect, had been given the training and
activation for free by a buddhist monk and did not believe in charging for
treatments.

