49

Reiki is a form of alternative medicine which has its origins in Japan. Palm healing and auras are central aspects of Reiki.

The practice of Reiki is getting more common, however, I was not able to find credible sources confirming or disputing the effects of Reiki.

Are there any scientific publications, studies or other credible sources confirming or disputing Reiki?

Edit: To be clear, by "medically valid science" in the title was a bit strangely worded. What I meant was, whether or not its medical effects could be scientifically conformed or disputed.

Lars Ebert
  • 591
  • 1
  • 5
  • 9
  • 3
    Do you have a source for the claim that Reiki practice is "getting more common"? Social media may be enabling supporters of it to be more visible in groups, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with *more people* supporting it. – loneboat Feb 24 '16 at 17:29
  • It could be argued that so-called "alternative medicine" is unscientific *by definition* and that medicine that's grounded on scientific investigation is just called... "medicine" (at least in the 21st century). – Tobia Tesan Feb 25 '16 at 08:12
  • http://rehab.ucla.edu/workfiles/Urban%20Zen/Research%20Articles/Reiki_Really_Works-A_Groundbreaking_Scientific_Study.pdf - in this article there are many links to hundreds clinics (800 in US uses it) and hundreds researches which show positive Reiki effect even for cancer healing. So below conclusion is not true. – Aleksey Kontsevich Feb 22 '17 at 14:16
  • @AlekseyKontsevich The advertisement says "Reiki education is offered free of charge in more than 800 American Hospitals". It doesn't say the hospitals use Reiki. It doesn't say Reiki heals cancer. The author of the advertisement is smart enough not to put his or her name on the advertisement. – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 14:28
  • @DavePhD It gives links to hundreds researches which tells Reiki can heal cancer as well and hospitals use Reiki. Go to this links and You'll see. How can they teach if they don't use?! :) I'm telling this as Reiki Master. – Aleksey Kontsevich Feb 23 '17 at 11:16
  • @AlekseyKontsevich the hospitals could allow some like you to use a room to teach a class, just like they have chapels, flower shops, cafeterias. – DavePhD Feb 23 '17 at 12:26
  • @DavePhD You are just guessing :) I gave You the link to hundreds researches and articles which shows Reiki can heal or help with cancer, diabetes, allergies, depression, etc, etc. I have such experiences also and can approve this. – Aleksey Kontsevich Feb 23 '17 at 14:10
  • 1
    @AlekseyKontsevich You're welcome to add your own answer to the question, but the document you linked to was created by a banned hubpages user under the fake name "Green Lotus". – DavePhD Feb 23 '17 at 14:22
  • @DavePhD answers are closed to this topic. Do not enter to "Green Lotus" link, there are many links to hospitals and researches in the text. Just need to read to the end :) All works! – Aleksey Kontsevich Feb 23 '17 at 14:28
  • @AlekseyKontsevich Answers are not closed, new users are just blocked from writing answers. So you will be able to answer once you have gained some reputation on other questions. Also: The link you provided does not link to a single scientific study, I have read it and followed all links, and not found anything substantial. But you are free to provide a link to a study directly, along with a relevant excerpt, like DavePhD does in his answer. – Lars Ebert Feb 23 '17 at 14:33
  • 1
    @AlekseyKontsevich I'll unclose (unprotect) it so you can answer. But give a good, well-documented, answer so moderators aren't angry at me for unprotecting. – DavePhD Feb 23 '17 at 14:39
  • @AlekseyKontsevich OK, I unprotected the answer. You can answer now. Please do a good job so moderators aren't angry at me. I'm already on double secret probation. – DavePhD Feb 23 '17 at 14:40
  • I'll do this later, however just need to repeat most information and links above article says. It strictly tells as well about 67 US hospitals use Reiki to heal, and their client insists on this. There are many other article links there where PhD persons do clinical researches and confirm Reiki has positive effect. – Aleksey Kontsevich Feb 23 '17 at 15:06

2 Answers2

82

There is a review article: Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials International Journal of Clinical Practice Volume 62, Issue 6, pages 947–954, June 2008.

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition.

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • 4
    Please keep the comments on topic and polite. I've removed some unnecessarily rude comments from here. – Sklivvz Feb 23 '16 at 21:44
  • 2
    This is one of the quickest and sharpest answers, I've found so far in the entire SE. Great job! – trejder Feb 24 '16 at 09:42
  • http://rehab.ucla.edu/workfiles/Urban%20Zen/Research%20Articles/Reiki_Really_Works-A_Groundbreaking_Scientific_Study.pdf - in this article there are many links to hundreds clinics (800 in US uses it) and hundreds researches which show positive Reiki effect even for cancer healing. So this conclusion is not true. – Aleksey Kontsevich Feb 22 '17 at 14:15
  • @AlekseyKontsevich The advertisement says "Reiki education is offered free of charge in more than 800 American Hospitals". It doesn't say the hospitals use Reiki. It doesn't say Reiki heals cancer. The author of the advertisement is smart enough not to put his or her name on the advertisement. – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 14:27
  • @DavePhD It gives links to hundreds researches which tells Reiki can heal cancer as well and hospitals use Reiki. Go to this links and You'll see. How can they teach if they don't use?! :) I'm telling this as Reiki Master. – Aleksey Kontsevich Feb 23 '17 at 11:16
38

Reiki is a framework that the Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui developed in 1922. In Mikau Usui own account he didn't find it through empiric investigation but says that the Reiki methology came as a vision to him.

In basic Reiki a practioner puts his hands on a patient and then visualizes specific symbols. Those symbols are then believed to create qi flow into the patient. Qi that's not supposed to come out of the energy of the practioner but that's channelled from a higher source.

Reiki teachers generally proclaim that they either practice Reiki as taught by Mikao Usui or the practice it intuitively. There's no systematized empiric process that evolved the field of Reiki. That means that it might be an art but it isn't a science.

Mikau Usui taught Reiki in three stages. The first stage is supposed to allow the practioner to do basic hands on treatment. The second stage supposedly give the ability for distance treatments. The third stage is about the ability to teach Reiki itself to other people and initiate them into the usage of the symbols.

Mikao Usui itself didn't talk about auras to the extend that you find today Reiki practioners who talk about auras it's because in modern New Age concepts blend together.

After being clear that the Reiki isn't a field that focuses on scientific progress the next question is whether it works.

There are positive trials of Reiki like Olson et al A phase II trial of reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients (2003)

On the other hand there's not enough evidence for meta-analyses to conlclude whether or not it's effective.

Lee's at al (2008) comes to that conlucion in Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

A more recent Cochrane analysis that focuses on the effect of Reiki on anxiety and depression also comes to the conclusion:

This means there is insufficient evidence to make any comment about the usefulness of Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression.

Christian
  • 33,271
  • 15
  • 112
  • 266
  • 4
    -1 for talking at length about whether or not it was established with the scientific method, whilst the question was asking about its effect. Thie implied reasoning that 'because it came through a vision it's incorrect' is totally misplaced on a skeptics site. Great sources at the end though, they directly address the question and discuss the effects of the practice, so definitely a +1 without the first half. – David Mulder Feb 22 '16 at 17:44
  • 25
    @DavidMulder : The title does ask whether it's science. – Christian Feb 22 '16 at 17:45
  • If it would have a statistically significant beneficial effect then - despite being conceived through whatever crazy methodology - it could still be easily labeled a 'medically valid science', although by that point you get in to semantics and philosophy of science. Either way, the question body should always be taken as the context within which the title is read. – David Mulder Feb 22 '16 at 17:48
  • @DavidMulder The question body mentions "scientific publications". If something is not "established with the scientific method" I would hope that a "scientific publication" would refrain from publishing it. It matters not a whit what methodology the creator and practitioners of Reiki may follow. What matters is whether any researchers could devise proper double-blind studies to judge whether the patients get anything other than placebo effect from it. – Monty Harder Feb 22 '16 at 18:36
  • @MontyHarder You're just affirming what I am saying... :/ – David Mulder Feb 22 '16 at 18:40
  • I think the first half of the question (history of reiki) can be ditched altogether. they add too little to the discussion proposed by the question. – Mindwin Remember Monica Feb 22 '16 at 19:09
  • 18
    @DavidMulder I disagree. The origins of a treatment seem *very* relevant to how trustworthy an idea is. You may have a point that it would be better if the information were later in the answer and more emphasis was put on the research itself up front, but the info there is useful information for coming to a conclusion about how much we should believe it. – jpmc26 Feb 23 '16 at 02:46
  • @Christian The Cochrane reference in the answer says "Reiki is a 2500 year old treatment". – DavePhD Feb 23 '16 at 12:24
  • 6
    @DavidMulder No, it's *very* important to establish the origins of an idea. If it came from genuine science, then all the scientific publications associated with that work would be relevant and it'd be important to be able to trace back. Continental drift for instance used to be thought wrong, but we can look back at the evidence which brought the idea into the light, as well as the individuals who championed it. But if it's simply the product of someone's imagination/vision, it's equally important to tell people that they won't find that evidence. – Graham Feb 23 '16 at 17:52
  • 4
    @jpmc26, not really. You'd be hard-pressed to find (conscious) scientific origins behind many hygiene practices, e.g. human waste sanitation. Yet science can confirm many of them after-the-fact. – Paul Draper Feb 23 '16 at 19:31
  • Much relevant info on origin/history of reiki here- the site does a better job than I could http://www.reiki.org/faq/historyofreiki.html – Ron Kyle Feb 24 '16 at 00:40
  • 2
    @PaulDraper Human waste sanitation actually *does* have scientific origins. Look up John Snow (the English doctor, not the one who knows nothing) and the sanitary movement. – Jack Feb 24 '16 at 18:53
  • @Jack, Rakhigarhi in the Indus valley had an urban sewage system a few thousand years before England existed. Later, modern scientific methods confirmed anecdote and intuition. – Paul Draper Feb 25 '16 at 16:57