In order for physicians and other healthcare practitioners to recommend a treatment to patients, they need evidence that the treatment is safe and effective. With respect to safety, there have been no reported negative effects from Reiki in any of the research studies. This is understandable given that no substance is ingested or applied to the skin, and Reiki touch is non-manipulative (and can be offered off the body when needed).

That leaves the question: is Reiki effective? Or more precisely, from a research perspective, what is Reiki effective for?

A Reiki practitioner would answer that question by saying, “Reiki is effective for restoring balance, which can show up in a number of ways, depending on the current need of the individual.” That’s not an answer that appeals to medical researchers, who are used to studying treatments for specific illnesses rather than treatments to promote wellness or restore balance.

Respected medical research is designed to address very specific questions. Although conventional medicine has long included a concept of homeostasis, or systemic balance, there has historically been no clear definition of this concept that can be used to test the hypothesis that Reiki promotes balance. Given the vagueness of the term stress and the differences in human bodies and the circumstances in which they live and function, how would science measure an individual’s balance?

In view of the research dilemma posed by the ambiguity of the term stress, brain researcher Bruce McEwen of Rockefeller University has proposed a new model using the terms allostasis/allostatic load. Allostasis refers to the body’s attempt to protect itself and regain homeostasis, and allostatic load refers to the damage that accumulates when those attempts are poorly managed and the stress response runs amuck.

Besides helping people recognize the difference between useful and harmful stress and how to reduce the latter, McEwen’s model puts forth a series of measurements that researchers can use to determine both the effect of stress on the system and the response to stress-reducing modalities. Reiki has not yet been studied in this way.

What are some of the other issues in researching Reiki?

Studying modalities such as Reiki brings up other questions. The randomized controlled trial is well suited to studying the impact of pharmaceutical products (although recent developments have shown that even this line of inquiry can be manipulated).

But is the linear simplicity of the randomized controlled trial well suited to studying therapies that clearly elicit complex, multileveled, rapid and lasting responses such as is seen with Reiki? Many respected researchers think not, and a dialogue about how best to study Reiki and other complementary therapies has begun. Systems theory is increasingly seen as providing a more viable approach to study the web of interactions involved in complementary therapies.

Another obstacle to Reiki research is the inability of contemporary technology to document the existence of the biofield, much less study its makeup or measure changes in it. Superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) measure extremely small magnetic fields and may in the future prove useful to this study. The speed with which technological advances are being made may mean that the needed technology is on the brink of development. However, it is also possible that Reiki or biofields lie outside the bioelectromagnetic spectrum.

Fortunately, it is not necessary for science to document the existence of either Reiki or the biofield in order to measure the impact of Reiki treatment on the human system (aspirin was used for 70 years before science began to understand how it works). Although some effects of Reiki treatment are measurable, such as improved heart rate and blood pressure, many commonly reported benefits of repeated Reiki treatment, such as a sense of spiritual connection and enhanced self-esteem, may not be quantifiable. It is still important to document these reported benefits.

Patients who feel more spiritually connected and who simply feel better about themselves may well be patients who are easier to treat. In this way, Reiki treatment might be shown to significantly, albeit indirectly, impact medical outcomes by supporting the ability of patients to access conventional medicine.

What is the status of the research?

While the debate on how best to study complementary therapies such as Reiki is gaining steam, research attempts have been and continue to be made. Nonetheless, research into Reiki is just beginning.

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) currently has five studies looking at Reiki’s ability to benefit people with diabetes, advanced AIDS, prostate cancer, fibromyalgia, and stress.

Other published studies have looked at the effect of Reiki treatment on measures of stress hormones, blood pressure, heart rate, and immune responsivity, and on subjective reports of anxiety, pain and depression. The studies to date are typically small, but there are some overlapping data, particularly in support of Reiki’s ability to reduce anxiety and pain.

References/Further Reading

Engebretson J, Wardell D. (2002). Experience of a Reiki Session. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 8:48-53.

Guyton, AC, Hall, JE. (2000). Textbook of Medical Physiology, 10th ed. Saunders, p. 3.

Mackay N, Hansen S, McFarlane O. (2004). Autonomic nervous systems during Reiki treatment: a preliminary study. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 10 (6): 1077-81.

McEwen, B., Lasley, EN. (2004). The End of Stress As We Know It. New York, NY: The Dana Press.

Miles, P., True, G. (2003). Reiki—Review of a Biofield Therapy: History, theory, practice and research [1]. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 9(2):62-72.

Miles P. (2003). Preliminary report on the use of Reiki for HIV-related pain and anxiety [2]. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 9(2):36.

NCCAM listing of Reiki research studies. Retrieved March 23, 2007 from http://nccam.nih.gov/health/reiki/#13 [3].

Olson K, Hanson J, Michaud M. (2003). A Phrase II trail of Reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients. Journal of Pain Symptom Management. 26 (5): 990-97.

Shore AG. (2004). Long-term effects of energetic healing on symptoms of psychological depression and self-perceived stress. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 10 (3): 42-48.

Schwartz G Russek L. (1997). Dynamical Energy Systems and Modern Physics: Fostering the Science and Spirit of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 3 (3): 46-56.

Vanderbilt, S. (2006). Reiki--Simple and Profound. Massage and Bodywork. Retrieved March 23, 2007 from http://www.massagetherapy.com/articles/index.php/article_id/640 [4].

Wardell DW, Engebretson J. (2001). Biological correlates of Reiki touch healing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 33(4):439-45.

Expert Contributor: Pamela Miles, Reiki Master [5]

Reviewed by: Deborah Ringdahl, RN, MS, CNM, Reiki Master [6]

Date: April, 2007

Return to top [6]