SUPPORTING YOUR HEALING SINCE 1994
Reiki Research -
By Philip M.P. Buttenfield
Winter, 2006, Volume 3, Number 1
During the course of a search for recent results of research involving Reiki, I came across a most thought-provoking article in Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Kelner, et al., a group of Canadian researchers, have done an interview project designed to examine the attitudes of practitioners of three different alternative medicine modalities toward "the need to demonstrate the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of their therapies and practices." The results appear in "Complementary and alternative groups contemplate the need for effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness research," Vol.10, pp.235-239 (2002).
Noting the rise in use of complementary modalities, and the persistent demand on the part of governments and insurance companies for research-based accountability on the part of all health care forms, both traditional and alternative, the study asked eight chiropractors, seven homeopaths and seven Reiki practitioners in the province of Ontario, Canada for their views on the need for valid, reliable scientific evidence of the safety and effectiveness of their respective therapies. In stark contrast to the other two groups, the Reiki practitioners felt no need to offer scientific proof that Reiki works, that it is safe or that it is cost-effective.
To be sure, there were reasons given for taking such positions. First and foremost is that "Reiki therapy is a form of spiritual growth based on energy and that scientific research on effectiveness is too mechanistic to fit [this] paradigm" p. 237. With regard to safety, the fact that Reiki is non-invasive and non-manipulative seemed to be sufficient for the practitioners to conclude that the safety of the modality is self- evident. As to cost-effectiveness, the same view obtained: that Reiki speaks for itself.
To those of us who practice and/or receive Reiki treatment on a regular basis, the effectiveness, safety and low expense of Reiki seem so apparent as to be beyond cavil. And perhaps the most cogent argument against attempting to measure its effectiveness lies in the fact that we as practitioners do not (indeed, cannot) direct Reiki energy to accomplish a desired agenda, i.e. cure a particular symptom, but intend only for the highest good to occur. This goal would seem to be inconsistent with the objectives of a scientifically based study, which is necessarily symptom-
However, as the chiropractors and homeopaths in the study observed, the production of a solid base of evidence would go far to win acceptance in the traditional medical community. This is desirable in order to get Reiki programs into acute medical settings, such as emergency and recovery rooms in hospitals, where Reiki could be used to reduce pain and obviate the side effects of medications. As several informal studies and countless anecdotal reports have shown, Reiki treatments in hospital can also reduce the length of a hospitalization, representing not only a source of cost reduction for hospitals (surely a point of attraction for insurance companies), but also (and more importantly) a means of getting patients out of hospital and back home sooner. The earlier a patient is discharged, the sooner he is rescued from exposure to infection (hospitals being a major source of germs and sepsis) and the stress and disorientation caused by the impersonal nature of hospitalization.
Acceptance of Reiki also opens the door to the use of Reiki treatments as an adjunct to outpatient treatments of all types. Acceptance by the medical community would additionally mean that Reiki, as a commonly accepted modality, would be made available on a broader basis to communities than it is currently the case.
Would this lead to the commercialization of Reiki? There will no doubt be those who will look to make their fortunes attempting to market this modality, but such individuals already exist. Would it lead to the creation of certification and practice standards? If so, that would not necessarily be a bad thing. Would it mean that Reiki would no longer be a spiritual practice? Absolutely not. There is no way to separate the spiritual aspects of Reiki practice from its practical effects. I strongly suspect that to attempt to ignore the spiritual nature of this energy work would ultimately result in complete ineffectiveness for the practitioner in question. I, for one, am quite unwilling to test this particular theory.
On a purely risk/benefit basis, therefore, it seems to me that there is far more to be gained by conducting research in Reiki than there is to be lost. Even if research is inconclusive, the practice of Reiki will be in no worse position than it .is now. Besides, we know it works, don't we?
