Energy medicine

Classification

The term "energy medicine" became common after the nonprofit International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine was established in the 1980s. Practitioners can find guides, and some books attempt to offer a theoretical foundation and evidence for these practices. The core idea is that illness stems from imbalances in a person's "energy field," and that correcting these imbalances can restore health. Certain approaches describe their work as removing negative energies or mental blockages; any sickness or poor health following a session is framed as a "release" or the letting go of a "contraction" in the body-mind. Typically, a practitioner will suggest more sessions for full recovery.

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) in the United States divides energy medicine into two categories. "Veritable Energy Medicine" uses scientifically measurable forms of energy, such as magnet therapy, colorpuncture, and light therapy. Standard medical procedures like radiation therapy or MRI scans are not classified as energy medicine within alternative medicine. "Putative Energy Medicine" involves methods that claim to direct or adjust energies that cannot be physically detected or verified. This category includes biofield healing therapies like spiritual healing, psychic healing, therapeutic touch, healing touch, Hands of Light, Esoteric healing, Magnetic healing (a historical term not to be confused with magnet therapy), Qigong healing, Reiki, crystal healing, distant healing, intercessory prayer, and similar practices. Many terms have been used to describe these supposed energy fields, including Qi (Chi), Prana, Innate Intelligence, Mana, Pneuma, vital fluid, Odic force, and orgone. This category does not include acupuncture, Ayurvedic medicine, chiropractic, moxibustion, or other modalities where a physical action is used to influence a putative energy.

Beliefs

Energy medicine encompasses a wide range of practices, such as biofield energy healing, spiritual healing, contact and distant healing, Pranic Healing, therapeutic touch, Reiki, and Qigong. In spiritual healing, practitioners typically do not require traditional religious belief to achieve cures, whereas faith healing operates within a religious framework, often associated with figures like televangelists. Although the Buddha is frequently cited by energy medicine advocates, he himself never performed hands-on or hands-off healing. Therapeutic touch, one of these techniques, has gained some acceptance in nursing. In 2005–2006, the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association officially recognized "energy field disturbance" as a patient diagnosis, a move that has been described as either postmodern or anti-scientific and has drawn significant criticism. To explain distant healing, proponents have turned to quantum mysticism, invoking concepts like non-locality. They also suggest that healers channel a form of bioelectromagnetism, similar to vitalistic pseudosciences such as orgone or qi. James Oschman, writing in the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, proposed that healers emit electromagnetic fields that shift in frequency, and he believes healing energy comes from medical devices, the healer's hands, or electrons acting as antioxidants. Beverly Rubik, in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, argued that biophysical systems theory, bioelectromagnetics, and chaos theory provide a scientific basis for the biofield. Drew Leder, in the same journal, noted that such physics-based models are not meant to be explanatory but rather suggestive, serving as attempts to make sense of psi and distant healing. Physicists and skeptics, however, dismiss these explanations as pseudophysics—a pseudoscience that uses jargon from modern physics to mask magical thinking, exploit scientific ignorance, and impress the uninformed. Even strong supporters of energy healing concede that the theoretical foundations for spiritual healing remain very tenuous.

Scientific investigations

A 2000 review of 23 distant healing trials could not reach firm conclusions due to flaws in how the studies were designed. The lead researcher, Edzard Ernst, noted in a 2001 cancer care guide that while roughly half of those trials suggested healing worked, the overall evidence was very mixed and methodologically weak. He added that spiritual healing carries virtually no risk if not used in place of proven treatments. That same year, a clinical trial by Ernst’s group compared distance healers to actors pretending to heal and found no meaningful difference in chronic pain relief. By 2003, Ernst updated his analysis and concluded that the evidence now leaned against distant healing, and that it could even cause harm. Another 2001 trial assigned 120 chronic pain patients to either real healers or simulated ones, but failed to show any benefit from either distance or in-person healing. A 2008 systematic review found that the case for spiritual healing specifically easing nerve pain was unconvincing. In their 2008 book, Simon Singh and Ernst argued that spiritual healing makes no biological sense and works only through the placebo effect. At best, it might offer comfort; at worst, it allows charlatans to take money from seriously ill people who need urgent medical care.