And who's the authority on what's extraordinary then?
E.g. soap kills viruses by dissolving them, some painkillers work by blocking transmission of signals along nerves, radiotherapy kills cells in the blast zone.
Other than through establishing a psychological effect around 'someone cares', there's simply no known way of positive thoughts in one person's head being transmitted down through the hands and directly doing some work on an illness.
If there were, what is it:
What kind of 'energy' do hands emit? How does the difference between Reiki hands and non-Reiki hands manifest? How does that 'energy' selectively effect diseases? How does thought modulate the diseases the 'energy' effects. E.g. how is the Reiki hand energy signature a function of the targeted disease? What's the molecular pathway by which the 'energy' improves the target ailment? If it's just regular 'energy' why can't we copy it with a machine and play it back en masse?
Use 10 people who have chronic pain who report pain relief with hands-on reiki.
As for the test: Hands-off reiki vs hands-off no reiki (person who isn't trained in reiki present) vs nothing
We should see significant reporting of gains with the hands-off reiki, and should see no gains with #2 or #3...
Just because we can't see this assumed energy doesn't mean we can't measure it somehow.
You can't ever measure it directly. Only indirect effects.
From that we build models.
And one of those models contains a quantity called "energy [physics/chemistry/etc]" which is in fact a highly abstract concept that doesn't correspond to any actual object in the world. Technically it doesn't even have a definite value in any real system.
But we take it seriously because there's a useful, strong conservation law based on strongly compelling underlying principles (e.g. Noether's theorem), and no known violation of said law, or at least, every time there is an apparent violation, it eventually leads us to an explanation. It's a very useful abstraction indeed, and we can build all sorts of useful things knowing it.
In fact, the conservation is key to making "energy [physics/chemistry/etc]" accurately measurable at all. And sometimes we even get that wrong.
The notion of "subtle energy" is another model, much less well developed and rarely if ever quantified. One can argue all day about whether it's a useful model and what it models, if anything. My view is I'd love to see serious attempts to work backwards from observed phenomena (such as mentioned in the GP), as well as other reports (people report tingling, heat, feelings like electrical currents etc - this is data even if it is subjective, and it has structure). And from that build a more coherent model than the "intuitive" explanations often produced.
But they are both describing abstract properties in models, and measurements are indirect not direct in both cases.
I'm also a reiki master.... And the CTO of a 2 person Signals Intelligence startup. I'd like to think I'm not conflating EM with "energy"(occult). Btw I hate that word - there's a definite meaning and the occult way it's used doesn't replicate known science. Maybe we should use Mana until we can define what it is.
I have tense muscles in my back from WFH. A Reikist touches my back. What happens to relieve the tension? Does mana from their hands exert a force to directly extend the tense muscles? Does the mana stimulate the release of some chemical which relaxes the muscle? How does it work?
I think Reiki would say that "energy" assists you to heal your own back, but it doesn't specify how that healing takes place. In addition, I think Reiki distinguishes between the "energy" of the practitioner, and "energy" of the universe which flows via the practitioner, and ideally the latter assists you.
If we assume (for the sake of this discussion) the relief of tension in your back takes place and you are then looking for a mechanism, I can immediately think of numerous plausible explanations we could begin to explore, some of which we could measure, and others are beyond our capabilities to measure.
I'll give some examples of plausible:
- The tension is caused by signals in your neural system. The Reiki experience caused a change of data in your neural system due an information "covert channel" that exists between your system and the practioner, and your muscle tension is relieved.
- The tension is caused by chemistry in your muscle cells or intercellular matrix. The Reiki experience caused a change of gene expression due numerous hormonal changes that occur in your body when you are in that environment.
With both of those examples we have scientific study methods for looking into more details. E.g. for the first, it would involve looking at neural signals and the practitoner's neural signals and other factors such as position, timing etc. to detect hidden signal transfer. For the second we could monitor all the hormones we might think are relevant, or if we want to search more broadly than just markers we already know about, perhaps monitor some general molecular distribution signals such as chromatography or spectrometry.
There are numerous modern methods for looking for signal relationship, but also numerous confounding factors.
The list of plausible things to explore is vast though, so ruling out one or two doesn't rule out there being a mechanism. However as you explore mechanisms, if you find something that shows a signal relationship, then you can zoom in and look into plausible underlying mechanisms for that mechanism, and repeat. There is no bottom, but the more levels deep a signal is shown, the more people are likely to call it a mechanism rather than an effect.
Yeah, that's a problem. I'm literally asking what this mechanism is. A discipline not being able to take a clear stab at one is a serious yellow card (I appreciate the fact that you personally try below).
> The Reiki experience caused a change of data in your neural system due an information "covert channel" that exists between your system and the practioner, and your muscle tension is relieved.
So, how would this 'covert channel' work? If we can figure it out that is the beginning of scientific telepathy and would thus be a defining discovery of the 21st century.
> The Reiki experience caused a change of gene expression due numerous hormonal changes that occur in your body when you are in that environment.
This is, at least theoretically, falsifiable. Using a RCT between trained Reikists, a sports massage, random masseur, and baseline. It would be expensive.
It still leaves open the question of how the Reiki effects the gene expression. Of course, getting a regular massage or lying down for a bit is going to change your gene expression somewhat.
E.g. is the claim that the mana directly moves transcription factors to the right places so that more of certain proteins get transcribed?
Repeat with photovoltaic cells, microphones, night-vision sensors, capacitative sensors, inductive sensors, magnetism sensors, etc.
My hypothesis is that reiki is 100% placebo effect, no difference will ever be measured between otherwise identical reiki and non-reiki movements, and the most effective investigation of reiki would be measuring the brain states of patients who think they are receiving treatments.
Activating the placebo effect is good. If we can study it enough, we might even be able to do it without any bunkum.
I would make the statement that NIR up through gamma/xrays is not being generated by the human body.
With that, we're looking at around 10THz of bandwidth for a full spectrum. At 8bit IQ acquisition, we're looking at 20TB/s... And if that's assuming you have ideal transmitters and receivers for the whole set of bands.
You want to also transmit to simulate if you find an area that seems to have a response. The test subject should feel something if that's the case.
If we use every measurement device humanity has at its disposal, and find no difference, it is safe to conclude that the visible effects of reiki have no discernable cause of action beyond the placebo effect--which can be reliably generated by putting sufficient flimflammery in your bunkum.
If there is a difference, it should be measurable. And repeatably measurable using standardized testing devices with SI-derived units. If there is a genuine effect that can only be measured by its effect on biology, then obviously one should be able to build a measurement tool using biological cells. If reiki is real, it can be explained, one question at a time.
I probably should have explained this part better. I wrote in a different comment, but let me make this clear:
1. What I mean about "subtle energy" is not the same as the "energy" of physicists.
2. Subtle energy is experienced by some people. Not everyone is aware of how various forms of subtle energy affects people and non-living things.
3. Not all forms of subtle energy is the same
4. Subtle energy is responsive to will and intent.
5. The problem is that, what we experience as consciousness, is in turn influenced and agitated by subtle energy.
6. Subtle energy carries information: emotions, concepts, awareness, sentience. Some forms have higher "content" than others.
6. Reiki is a specific form of subtle energy, but no one actually knows where it comes from or why attunement works. Attunement is supposed to tune a consciousness to the source of reiki, but no one has luck finding out what that source is. If they have, they are not talking. My friends (I am not attuned myself) who were attuned had tried, but not luck finding out about it.
7. At best, the characteristics we found out about it is that it is universal (rather than personal), non-local, is not qi (despite the name), is not emotional, or elemental, or fluidic. It is very "light", without much substance (compared to some other forms of subtle energy). We were trying to understand this in order to distinguish it from secondary effects that _do_ have locality, or are experiences of side effects that are personal. (In other words: what are the experiences a practitioner have to know that what they are doing is working?)
As far as how it effects disease, there are a lot of literature on that. Again, not in the mainstream consensus.
It isn't just regular "energy". Some people have tried to copy subtle energy and play it back en mass. The mechanism they use is similar to that of homeopathy. How effective it is ... I have my doubts, but maybe it works. Since we (people who practices Reiki) don't actually know the Reiki source, I also have doubts we can copy it mechanistically.
There you go. This is why the idea is extraordinary. There is the energy of physicists which explains the motions of the planets, the vibrations of crystals ;), and the mechanics of your computer. In fact, it is the theory we have for everything in the universe except the phenomenon of someone touching someone else while thinking a special kind of happy thought.
> Subtle energy carries information
Regular energy carries information too. How do you think radio works? Or how cosmic background radiation yields knowledge about what happened just after the big bang?
> The problem is that, what we experience as consciousness, is in turn influenced and agitated by subtle energy.
How? What does the subtle mechanism look like? What are the corresponding subtle equations, subtle algorithms or subtle models?
There is no known form of energy that can do what the commenter is claiming it can.
So someone making a claim about the realness of reiki energy needs to either prove it and explain its properties in ways that are true of other forms of energy, or possibly more easily, they need to change their terminology.
The problem is that the reiki and homeopathy, etc practitioners deliberately abuse scientific terminology because it adds a veneer of believability to their otherwise outlandish claims. And it fools the layman into believing there is actually some science behind their claims.
If they did choose to use appropriate terminology based on the actual properties, they will find that terminology will converge to words and phrases like “placebo effect” and “emotional support” rather quickly, which cannot earn them hundreds of dollars an hour.
And by the way, the word "energy" did not originate in science and engineering.
So statements like "there is no known form of energy that can do what the commenter is claiming it can" are incorrect, because they are meaningless when applied to homonyms.
They are just artefacts of people talking past one another.
I think the commenter who explained that "subtle energy" is best understood as an atomic language term that means something different from "energy" has it about right.
It would be helpful if people would stop trying to be "scientific" while actually ignoring the meanings of things being talked about by each other.
That goes for the practitioners applying an unsupported veneer of scientific credibility to claims, but it also goes for armchair scientist types applying an unsupported veneer of knowledge about a subject they have chosen to not really study.
I use that term because it behaves a lot like physical energy. It has intensity. The more of it there is, the more things become active. It keeps being used as a term because for those who experience it, the concept of energy describes it very well.
But one of the characteristic it has that is not described by physics is that it carries information: emotions, concepts, awareness, sentience.
For example, there are two forms of subtle energy that can be described as "electric" and "magnetic". It is similar enough that people use those terms for it. The Theosophists of the early 20th century popularized that notion ... but the actual experience of the "electric" energy is more like living, liquid, luminous lightning (electric). It is not electricity.