Distant Reiki
Critique of the paper "Experiences With a Distant Reiki Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic Using the Science of Unitary Human Beings Framework," by Jennifer DiBenedetto (Advances in Nursing Science. 2022 Oct-Dec 01;45(4):E145-E160)
Thomas J. Wheeler
A letter was sent to the editor of Advances in Nursing Science, as well as to the section editor for "Visions: Scholarship of Rogerian Science) in response to the paper cited above. The letter read, in part:
I am writing to express concerns with the paper “Experiences With a Distant Reiki Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic Using the Science of Unitary Human Beings Framework,” by Jennifer DiBenedetto (Advances in Nursing Science 45(4): E145-E160, October/December 2022). My concerns are described below.
I am interested in submitting a letter to the editor for publication, which would be based on these concerns...
Some concerns with the paper:
1. Reiki is not recognized as a scientifically valid method. It purports to manipulate a “universal life force energy,” but no such energy is known to science. Practitioners of reiki and other forms of “energy medicine” have never demonstrated that such energy exists, let alone the ability to detect and manipulate it with their unaided hands. The author does not inform the reader that Reiki is not scientifically accepted, or even that it is at all controversial.
2. The paper makes several statements about this supposed “energy” that raise questions:
a. Reiki is normally practiced with the hands on or just above the subject. How is it possible to practice it at a distance? Was any distance effect noted, and if not, why not? No citations are given for research studies showing the validity of distant reiki; the only reference for the practice (Ref. 19) is a nursing textbook.
b. There is mention of “an intentional creation of a ball of energy with the PI’s hands.” How was this “ball of energy” created? How was it known that it had been created? What type of energy? How many joules did it contain? By what means was it confined to a ball? In fact, it appears that this is merely an assertion on the part of the author.
c. It is said that there is “movement in human field patterns from lower frequency wave patterns...to higher frequency wave patterns throughout each encounter.” What are human field patterns? How was it determined that their frequencies increased? What were the frequencies before and after? As with the previous point (ball of energy), this appears to be merely an assertion based on no evidence.
3. As the author acknowledges, there were no controls. Not only that, but the author states that "The sham Reiki and control groups were intentionally omitted to be more congruent with Rogerian theory." Given the lack of controls, how can the author be sure that the results (reduction in stress and anxiety) were not due to a combination of conversation with a sympathetic individual, expectations, and other psychosocial influences? Participants who were recruited were likely to be sympathetic to reiki and thus susceptible to reporting positive results. The placebo effect is far more likely an explanation of the results than the operation of a form of "energy" unknown to science.
4. The study uses human research participants to test a treatment purporting to reduce stress and anxiety. Yet I see no mention of approval of the study by an Institutional Review Board (or a statement explaining that the study was exempt from review).
5. The author notes that informed consent was obtained, but we are not told what was explained to the research participants. Proper informed consent would involve telling participants that the treatment is considered implausible by the scientific community.
6. The theoretical base of the paper is Martha Rogers' "Science of Unitary Human Beings." I realize that this so-called "science" is promoted by your journal, but you must be aware that it is regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community. It is a belief system often described as a nursing theory, but it isn't a theory in the sense of relying on a rigorous body of evidence. The author does not acknowledge any controversy concerning Rogers' ideas in her paper.
Here are some weaknesses as noted in an article that is sympathetic to the approach (1):
"Rogers’ model does not define particular hypotheses or theories, for it is an abstract, unified, and highly derived framework.
"Testing the concepts’ validity is questionable because its concepts are not directly measurable.
"The theory was believed to be profound and was too ambitious because the concepts are extremely abstract."
Others are much more critical, for example, physicist Alan Sokal (2). According to Sokal, "Rogers does not exhibit the slightest knowledge of physics...she borrows terms from physics and then throws them around without regard for their meaning." Her basic concepts contain "pseudoscientific verbiage" that "is perfectly meaningless." Her "purported 'definitions' are as meaningless as the terms allegedly being defined." In summary, "What is the rational reader to make of the Science of Unitary Human Beings? From a logical or empirical point of view, there is only one appropriate word: loony."
Related to the Sokal's charge of "pseudoscientific verbiage," the present paper uses terminology such as human-environmental energy field, intereffect, pandimensionality, unitary field pattern, energyspirit, unitariological inquiry, integrality, helicy, resonancy, and wellbecoming. While these may make sense to disciples of Rogers, they carry convey little meaning to the scientific and medical communities as a whole.
Another critic, Jef Raskin (3), wrote: "To get started in relating Rogers work to concepts with which I am familiar, I asked each of the nursing theorists these two questions (among others): Just what are the frequencies of the energy fields? Rogers says that these frequencies increase, how did she determine this? Not one of my sources was able to answer either question."
This goes along with my point 2c above.
Raskin also noted that "Unlike science, nursing theory has no built-in mechanisms for rejecting falsehoods, tautologies, and irrelevancies."
As I noted in my point 3, the author of the present paper implies that Rogerian theory discourages the use of controls, further evidence that it is unscientific.
Publishing papers such as this, which uncritically promote the pseudoscience of reiki and the Science of Unitary Human Beings, detracts from the status of nursing as a science-based profession.
References
1. Gonzalo A. 2023. Martha Rogers: Science of Unitary Human Beings. https://nurseslabs.com/martha-e-rogers-theory-unitary-human-beings/#h-the-science-of-unitary-human-beings
2. Sokal A. 2004. Pseudoscience and postmodernism: antagonists or fellow-travelers? https://web.archive.org/web/20130927030416/http://io.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/pseudoscience_rev.pdf
3. Raskin J. 2000. Rogerian nursing theory. A humbug in the halls of higher learning. Skeptical Inquirer 24(5):30-35
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In response, the editors declined to publish my letter (even though this was a proposal for a letter, not what would have been the final form of the letter). It was said that the issues brought up were not new to the literature. It was also noted that the study "did have an IRB statement."
In a reply, I noted:
I do not see how previous discussion of the issues in the literature excuses the deficiencies in this paper:
1. It is standard for scientific papers to include a discussion of the background of the work. In this case the paper dealt with two areas (reiki and Rogerian science) that are regarded as utterly without merit by the scientific community. Yet the author did not even hint of anything controversial about them.
2. It is also standard to discuss alternative explanations of the data. While the author admitted that there were no control groups, she did not mention the possibility that placebo effects could account for the results. (In fact, this is a far more likely explanation).
3. The author made incredible claims inconsistent with known physics (creating a "ball of energy" and determining changes in the frequency in "human field patterns" of distant participants) with no evidence.
The reviewers and editors should have seen that these deficiencies were addressed prior to publication.
I hope that in the future you will ensure that papers making claims contrary to scientific knowledge are subjected to more critical examination.