Talk:Reiki/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Legitamacy of the Applied Placebo Effect

I have been practising Traditional Reiki for 11 years and teaching for 6 years. There are at least a dozen cases of crying children stopping crying through distance healing, with only two cases where children would not stop. Only I was aware of my channelling Reiki. Is this placebo effect? How about a six year old girl, struggling with severe stomach ache, overcoming it completely in 20 minutes through touch healing, without even being aware of what I was doing. Is it placebo effect?

Too much scientific analysis is being done on a subject, which need no such analysis. Those who want to learn, practice and benefit, let them. Let others find fault and waste their time and energy (not Reiki energy).

59.182.45.44 05:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)HR Shenoy, Mumbai, India age 64

I think that reiki is not given its due as a practical method of holistic healing. While many would dispute its validity over the simple fact that the energy purported by practitioners is not (yet) measurable through the scientific method, one must also consider the subjective results. Some more intelligent (arguably) and broad minded practitioners would say that the energy of reiki IS the energy of the placebo effect - applied faith, as it were. It is litterally the positive thought of the universal conciousness, and when aligned with a practitioner and a subject, both inviting that positive change - that energy - through faith, hope, and ritual, the results are valid even if the method is not clearly understood. The japanese concept - the eastern concept in general - of energy, is a lot more inclusive of concept and ideal than the scientific definition. Ultimately, though, everything is energy, and even our current physics take us further towards this idea as we try to determine if there is a difference between energy and matter.

But, as you say, it is subjective, not objective. The article has to reflect that. We aren't here to convince anyone that reiki is real or not, just to provide info for people to make up their own minds. There are a lot of notable objections to Western medicine and the scientific method in general, too, and we have to report those as well. Fire Star 20:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the downside of this discussion- especially from the Wikipedia editors point of view- concerning Reiki is that they (editors) consider some things as legitmate such as martial arts techniques because of the lineage. If things are ancient then that legitimizes the method. I would suggest that the Western orthodox medical community would place most of the Asian martial arts practices in the same category as Reiki- unless you are equating martial arts with exercising the body as a daily work out. If chi is involved it is pseudoscience. No getting around it. The issue with Reiki is that there are really no body movements involved, thus no exercise. It is all about subtle energy which to date is not validated by the scientific community.

If we stay current, something that most detractors of Reiki and other hands on energy techniques do not bother with, we will find that there are, as I write, experiments in progress such as Gravity Probe B that is trying to prove that there is such a thing as gravitomagnetism (perhaps another name for chi) See:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/19apr_gravitomagnetism.htm

The point is that the Reiki experience should be allowed to be written without the quackery and detractor commentary. The emphasis should be on the original Reiki stream from Japan to Hawaii and perhaps the Japanese Reiki that never left their shores. All the other Reiki derrivatives could be discussed in a related section.

"The point is that the Reiki experience should be allowed to be written without the quackery and detractor commentary." Why? Wikipedia isn't a free advertising service. When someone asks me how a martial art works, I can show them a demonstrable, reproducible mechanism. I can also show them how the leverage is coordinated with the breath (ch'i), and that that leverage works better with the coordination than without it. Not lineage, efficacy. When I ask a reiki practitioner how reiki works, they don't demonstrate a mechanism, it is all faith as you say, subjectivity incarnate. Does that make reiki bad? No. But it does make it subjective. That is inescapable. Fire Star 05:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There's more than enough criticism of reiki in this article. I agree that the poor reader should at least be given the chance to go beyond the opening paragraph before being blasted by quackery claims. The 5th paragraph does this ably, and there're also the dedicated sections further in the article, as well as wording such as 'reiki practitioners claim' or 'is said by its practioners' that implies criticism. I suggest the sentence 'Nevertheless, because of the lack of objective evidence for its theories or its results, the scientific establishment considers Reiki to be quackery.' be removed from the opening paragraph. Fire Star, are you happy with this? Greenman 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the language of practitioners claim or is said by its practitioners is necessary for NPOV, and doesn't imply criticism. It is the same language used on most of the alternative medicine articles, and even with subjects that would seem less controversial. Reiki is a typical example of such a practise, and as such its controversial nature is one of its most notable features. You will find similar wording at articles like Falun Gong, Scientology and Homeopathy. We aren't denigrating reiki, we are reporting it. If its theories and practise seem dodgy to many people, that shouldn't be swept under the rug in a POV puff piece. We do also imply that many people find it valuable and study it. The article should present both sides, and report controversies. The Taijiquan and Qigong articles do the same. I agree that perhaps "quackery" is a bit strong, perhaps "controversial" is a little better... Fire Star 16:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a specific purpose for emphasizing Celtic Reiki in the category of Non Traditional Reiki? Is this an example (editors) of how Reiki became corrupted from the original teachings be it from the Japanese Reiki or from the Hawayo Takata - Chujiro Hayashi lineage? If the editors have some knowledge of Asian energy arts, they should know that the Master passes down the empowerment. In this case, the Reiki streams would be intact. To write that channeled New Age teachings are synonymous with the original Reiki streams is both ludicrous and an oxymoron. Non Traditional Reiki originally referred to those independent Reiki teachers that did not follow the guidelines of the more formal Reiki organizations that were established after Mrs. Hawayo Takata such as Radiance Technique- generally in regard to the amount of money charged or training levels involved. Japanese Reiki (outside of Japan) came later. When we bypass the original Reiki teachings and group New Age channeling and teaching with it then Reiki becomes a pot puree of confusion and angst. Perhaps "New Age Channeled Reiki" would be a better heading than Non Traditional Reiki. There is a significant difference in both transmission and in the teachings.

• • • It is obvious now that the editors and others of similar motivation choose to voice their jaundiced views concerning the Reiki experience looking for the extremes and not the middle balanced view when discussing Reiki:

"Reiki is a Japanese style of faith healing, which was popularized during the Meiji period (the late 19th century) by Mikao Usui (usui mikao 臼井甕男) in Japan. It has gained a small following worldwide. Nevertheless, because of the lack of objective evidence for its theories or its results, and the mystical language and metaphor employed by its adherents, the scientific establishment considers Reiki to be nothing more than a placebo."

What part of Reiki is faith? Most practitoners would consider Reiki to be a subtle energy art that is not based on faith but direct experience. If one looks at the "Medicine Buddha" section of Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_Buddha

there is no mention of quakery, placebo or small following world wide. There is also no proof based on stated Western scientific method that the Medicine Buddha practice works or is legitimate. Both Reiki and Medicine Buddha work with subtle healing energy. The Medicine Buddha is a Tibetan Buddhist practice. Reiki is not a dharma teaching. This does not in any way infer that Reiki is not a profound subtle energy art that helps one become more aware, more awake.

At Wikipedia, writers slander some practices and condone others. There is no continuity nor balanced measured handling of these topics. The truth in Reiki is in its simplicity as it was originally transimitted to the West- not in the extremes of its attenuation via the New Age teachings that claim a legitimate Reiki connection. ***

Be bold?

I moved a sentence from the first paragraph down to the "Controversies" section, and now the first sentence is in bold and italics. The codes in the edit box looked OK, but the preview did not. I have no idea why the text came out formatted like that, nor do I have any idea how to fix it. Just goes to show you that a little knowledge can be dangerous, no matter how bold you are. How do I fix this? JKM4620 04:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed (I'm not sure why it wasn't working the other way - the code looked fine to me). -GrantNeufeld 04:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

++ Be Real? ++

Where does faith healing come into play with Reiki? Faith healing implies that someone or something else is doing the healing- that somehow one is bringing in healing energy from somewhere else. This implies that Reiki is channeled so to speak. The truth in the Reiki experience is about self empowerment and self healing. It is about healing from the inside out. The inside (beyond references) is about ones natural inner perfection and accessing that. Reiki is personal in this regard. There is no where else to go. Reiki is self empowerment when approached in this manner. To understand the Reiki experience in this way one has to approach Reiki from a Buddhist perspective- though one does not have to be a Buddhist practitioner. There is no way around it.

Reiki self empowerment is recognizing ones Buddha nature or in other words, recognizing ones inner perfection that is inherent in us all. It cannot be improved upon or changed- but just is. Self healing is not just about physical healing though physical healing is important to us all. Reiki healing is about wellness and accessing well being- to be happy. Happy in this way is a sense of comfort and having courage to walk ones path regardless of what is happening. It is about a knowingness. This is a far cry from faith ***especially faith healing*** and dependence upon something else. Reiki is very natural because we are natural when we are awake to our inner beauty. Being awake requires consistency and practice each day. To be awake to the Reik experience one must be in its flow (ones inner flow with awareness) moment to moment. We are all going to get sick and die eventually. All things change except for our inner beauty that is a profound wellness beyond the physical changes.

If Reiki has a meaning beyond this natural simplicity then what is being taught as Reiki truly is something else and falls into the category of make believe.

Removing links

There have been some recent edits by an anon user that have been seemingly in aid of taking out critical internal and external links. We have to present a balanced approach, Wikipedia isn't an advertising service. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Fire Star 01:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Takata paragraph moved...

Aha. And I've discovered the discussion page. After reading the most interesting commentary here, I am compelled to note that I have moved a paragraph describing Takata's claims to occur after Takata has been introduced in the text. The article's flow doesn't suffer too badly from the move, but it seems Takata needs to be introduced before her claims can be discussed.

Postscript. Being a student and level 3 practitioner myself, I have seen first hand the effects of Reiki upon others. Upon my initial read of this article I must admit I was rather discouraged to have almost every sentence begin with a disclaimer. Although it is very succinct and informative, I finished reading the article with a negative feeling. It may be a question of semantics, but perhaps "allegedly" and its forms could soften the tone a bit. Zirconiums 08/22/2005 16:08 (no tilde on this keyboard)

Greetings. The move makes good sense. Fire Star 00:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Skeptic Site Links

Apparently, I am the anonymous user who “removed critical links.”

The link I removed was to some stupid skeptic site. And I tried to replace it with a link which has information about omni ki style reiki. I think I posted the wrong link.

Anywho, I did add some information which helped to balance this ridiculously slanted entry.

Slanted? Or balanced?

All I see in this article is information which makes reiki sound like hogwash!

You got two perspectives, the new-agie way out there perspective, and the skeptical perspective. Nothing here links reiki to its Traditional Japanese Medical roots, Taoism, or any form of oriental medicine. All that is here is information making reiki practitioners sound like a bunch of whack-jobs. And the information I posted, with the help of a friend, had a good insight into the style of reiki we where trained in.

It was not promotional, but informational. We didn’t delete anything from any other user, except the link to the BS skeptic site, which gives about as balanced of a perspective as fox news.

The information we posted was deleted, by a moderator. Some balance!

So, there you go. Think what you will, but this entry about reiki gives no information about the system of reiki which we know. And since I am also a reiki master teacher of several lineages, I think I do know a bit about the subject.

- Vegan Stephen

The fourth paragraph boldy begins with the statement:

" Many scientists, health care workers and others dispute the effectiveness of Reiki, claiming that there are no objective studies confirming the existence of this specific Reiki energy or practitioners' claims that this Reiki energy has the capacity to facilitate healing beyond that expected from the placebo effect"

The question that arises in my mind and perhaps with others reading this section is who are these scientists? Where is the source for this statement and why does it come at the beginning of the paragraph and not at the end. Interestingly enough, the latter part of this paragraph does have a source:

" At the same time, some healthcare workers (medical doctors, nurses, mental health professionals, hospice and nursing home workers, and other healthcare providers) believe that Reiki has some beneficial effect on the recipient and is a worthwhile inclusion in both professional training and patient care (to wit, registered nurses may earn continuing education units, or CEUs, through the American Holistic Nurses Association, accredited by the American Nurses Credentialing Center, for Reiki training.)"

The latter part of the paragraph also blends in with the overall context of the Reiki experience. The "placebo effect" statement would best be discussed in the controversy section.

The Non traditional Reiki section is a nightmare and an embarrassment. Anyone trying to make heads or tails of what the writer is trying to convey will be stumped here. At issue is ignorantly placing Reiki teaching from independent Reiki masters in the same light as New Age spiritualism and other fringe thinking. It really is quite a mess to read and sort out if one does not know the truth about the history of Reiki.

This article was filled with lines like, "said to" and passive voice writing. I've attempted to clean most of it up but it could still use a little more work. I removed a few of the over used "claim" statements and replaced them with teach... which is less judgmental and equally true. Reiki schools, masters and teachers don't just claim many of these things, they teach these things. Some of the criticism of Reiki seems redundant. I'm not sure that the entire segment on Reiki as a cult serves much of a purpose. Some people say the Catholic Church is a cult yet it is not included in the encylopedia. While I'm sure that some pracitioners out there some place are basing their fees on huge percentages of the income of the ill client I hardly think this is the norm. so I adjusted the text and if you have sources for these stories of peole being charged tens of thousands of dollars for teatments, please include them in future posts. There is a lot to be said for the "placebo effect" and maybe that is all Reiki is able to generate and for many people the placebo effect can make a huge difference. When I get a chance I'll add more on this along with somme excellent research and source information on the bennefits of creating the "placebo effect".

I think you are entering a profound area when delving into the "placebo effect". A synonymous word for this term may be inter-being and accessing ones innate self healing while also benefiting from the compassionate intentions of others in the form of vital energy flow. Western medical science is still focused on isolating processes thinking that there are no energy interconnections.

Please sign your comments, people. Four tildes in a row will do it. It is alright to say that a skeptical website is "stupid" and that the placebo effect should be called something else on the talk page, but you'll all have to remember that not everyone is as impressed with reiki as its practitioners are. Please read the archived talk above, as we've gone over this ground several times before with this article. To be brief, we don't want this article to be an advertisement, instruction manual or a defamation page. We should present the notable arguments pro and con and let the readers decide. Fire Star 20:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Creating a clear and balanced view of Reiki

Fire Star, the the discussions on the Reiki article should give a fair and balanced view of Reiki. Recently, with constructive criticism, the text is more balanced than it was two months ago. Since you are the gate keeper on this article,it would be helpful and informative for visitors and those interested in adding their views to know what is acceptable when changes are to be made. My thought is most readers of this discussion page would come away feeling that you- Fire Star- are not approaching this article with the necessary degree of neutrality. It would be helpful if more than one Wikipedia editor shares their views on this topic. What does it matter if not everyone likes Reiki? There should be a section for the controversy and a section for the Reiki experience as it unfolded. There is also a big question mark, so to speak, about sources. It should apply across the board and be current.

Attempting to stiffle the discussion page really serves no constructive purpose. My view is that we all want to present Reiki in a way that is both professional, informative, and well written with documented sources.

Tom05

Greetings Tom. FWIW, I'm not the gatekeeper, I'm just another editor who happens to have this article on their watchlist. What sets me apart from the average editor of an article like this is that I have some idea of how Wikipedia works, and also of the cultural contexts Usui drew upon to create reiki as well as the cultural contexts modern New Age practitioners use to promote it. As I've said in the archived discussion, where reiki needs to be qualified is in its mechanism, which is really only demonstrable by the reiki people saying that it exists. There are many other practises where this is also the case, of course. I'm sorry that you see that as hostile to reiki, but our NPOV policy kind of demands that all sides of the story be put in. I've also included, even insisted, that critical paragraphs be included on articles about disciplines that I myself practise, FWIW. If any discipline can't acknowledge and answer critical questions, what indeed is it doing? Fire Star 02:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

inadequate definition altogether

There needs to be a set standard for how these articles are written. The hard feelings which are expressed here are an obvious result of preconceived notions about certain forms of natural medicine and its proponents. One does not have to look far to see the obvious bias within the wikipedia medical pages. When one reads the article about antibiotics they can observe this bias towards western medicine as the only form based on true scientific principles. This is actually far from the truth. Western medical practice observes the body in a very material way. If part A is malfunctioning, take it out. If there is pain in part B than take a pill to kill the pain. There is very little health or healing involved in the practice of allopathic medicine and surgery. However, it is treated within these pages as if it was nearly absent of any controversy at all. Let it be known, that these treatments are controversial and dangerous.

Example: Antibiotics have been under fire since the beginning. Even the name Anti (against) bio (life) ought to send shivers down the spine of anyone interested in taking this drug. By not mentioning the placebo response involved in boosting the effectiveness of these and other drugs, yet mentioning it under other treatment entrees, you are asserting that placebo response is absent. A slight mention of the misuse of antibiotics is inefficient to bring this point home. Surgery which is controversial even within the allopathic medical establishment, gets listed without mentioning this controversy all together.

All of the drugs that medical practitioners prescribe have been tested against inert substances during their clinical trials. By virtue of these drugs classification as therapeutic agents we know that they have an effect beyond non-specific (i.e. placebo). If drug X's effect on disease Y was no better than the placebo then it wouldn't have been approved. Medical practitioners acknowledege the existence of the non-specific effects (i.e. placebo effects) of the drugs they prescribe. The vital point is that double-blind trials have demonstrated that these drugs have more than non-specific effects. The issue which you have failed to grasp is that the apparent efficacy of alternative therapies such as Reiki may consist of nothing more than non-specific effects (i.e. placebo). 60.240.178.243 10:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is simply this, if credit is to be given to any form of treatment, one must list it objectively by defining it as it is defined within its prospective community. The reiki article does not come close to this in anyway, shape or form. This article is inadequate, and should not be considered a balanced view of the practice.

If a balanced perspective is what you truly desire, than list a balance of views within the energetic medical community. There are many forms of this healing to fill countless pages with different views of its practice. Instead, you have chosen to list only the perspectives of the new age and those who appose these prospective. You haven’t even intelligently defined reiki within these pages. If you cannot present a proper definition of reiki, than you cannot begin argue the controversy surrounding it.

Stephen Mace, RMT, MTI, Reiki Master Teacher

Mr. Mace, thank you for your POV. I might point out, however, that Wikipedia does not exist to argue the controversy surrounding Reiki. I might also suggest that there is a subtle difference between a "balanced perspective" and a neutral point-of-view (NPOV). Neutrality is not achieved by taking everyone's opinions and balancing them out. Neutrality is achieved by distinguishing facts from opinions and recording them as such. It is a fact that Reiki proponents make certain claims. It is also a fact that disinterested parties have conducted careful studies which do not support these claims.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean about defining Reiki "as it is defined within its prospective community." I'm tempted to believe that what you want is a dreadfully irresponsible definition wherein the unproven and undemonstrable claims made by Reiki practitioners are discussed as factual. However, your statement is ambiguous enough that I'm willing to wait for clarification.

Finally, if you would like a "proper" definition of Reiki, I suggest you provide us with one! And if people disagree with your definition or find it less than neutral, you will find out quickly enough. Alaren 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

You reiki fanatics need to start allowing all POVs to contribute to the article. The thing that makes wiki so great is the diversity of background opinions that go into each article. I dont see this happening here. Why should spiritualist/propagandistic/ignorant/closed minded/fanatical views have more validity than skeptical views? --unsigned comment from 69.162.172.83

The reiki people can't prohibit other views of reiki that don't violate Wikipedia policy in the article. I'm quite sceptical of reiki, to be honest, and I'm happy with the presentation. The talk page, not the article itself, is where people vent and discuss their opinions and expectations for the article. --Fire Star 01:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I met this wonderful reiki artist named Michelle Church. Has anyone seen any of her work??

Labeling others and a question of neutrality

I see where the article on Reiki has reverted back towards the mean spirited theme it once had. The body part(hand) photograph that is shown as one starts viewing this page is an especially wierd experience. Labeling Reiki practitoners who are attempting to contribute their perspectives on Reiki as fanatics/ignorant/closed minded etc. does little to improve the situation. Let's tell it like it is. The only people who are preventing others from sharing their views pro and con for this article are the Wikipedia staff.

Tom05

Well, we have complaints on this page from people who love reiki and people who hate reiki. As far as that is an indication of a middle road of simple, neutral reporting of this controversial issue, it seems to me that we must be doing something right! --Fire Star 18:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To that I might add, the Wikipedia staff aren't "preventing others from sharing their views pro and con for this article." Everyone is free to share their views and I'd say this talk page proves it. What the community is trying to avoid is having a bunch of "pro" and "con" lists in the article. The article should not be a debate. The article should present information--that is, NPOV information. If someone claims (pro) Reiki can heal them, that is not the same as "Reiki is known to heal people." If someone claims (con) that Reiki is a pack of lies, that is not the same as "the (insert citation here) scientific study found no evidence of Reiki practitioners' claims." People's pro-and-con anecdotes should not be a part of this article. The history of Reiki, the claims that Reiki practitioners make, the results of carefully conducted scientific experimentation--these are the things the article needs, and as it reads now I'm pretty satisfied with it. If anything, it goes a little too easy on the quacks that rip people off with this snake oil and chicanery, but that's just my opinion--and so it's not a part of the article. Alaren 00:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

More on Neutrality

We could easily go line by line in the article and disclose the flawed logic in this pseuodo- neutral presentation on Reiki. Luckily, those who do happen upon this talk page will see the merits in discovering the Reiki experience from credible sources. The only rip off and quackery here is those that claim to be neutral as they deconstruct this article into a rag of discontent and weirdness. It is a sham and a shame.

Tom05

I tried to be npov but i couldnt find any legitimate scientific evidence supporting reiki... if anyone manages to find any i encourage them to add it. unsigned comment from User:69.162.172.83

That's because there aren't any reproducible studies which show conclusively to the satisfaction of the general scientific community that reiki has an objective effect beyond that predicted by the placebo effect. If there were I'd be happy for them to be listed. It's easy to just say that the logic of a presentation is flawed, but if it isn't easy to point out the flaw so that others will agree, then how logical is the argument? Just saying reiki works isn't enough to prove to outside observers, or WP editors, that reiki works. We don't have that kind of a relationship with the people who say that. Just by saying an article isn't neutral isn't enough to prove to most WP editors that it is biased. Any discipline has valid criticisms associated with it. I have also included criticisms of practises I myself know to be very valuable in the articles relating to those practises. But things like this have to be specifically pointed out, word for word and line by line. it isn't convincing to say that what one disagrees with is "weird" and a "sham," the burden of proof has to be met. So, the language stays qualified. At WP we don't say Jesus was the son of God, we say Jesus' followers say that. And a lot more people say that than believe in reiki. --Fire Star 03:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Reiki Scientifically Valid

Reiki is a scientifically valid healing practice. The energy has been measured with scientific instruments, there is a scientific theory that describes how it works and there are scientific studies that demonstrate its effectiveness.

The following scientific theory of Reiki shows that at least some of the healing aspects of Reiki have been demonstrated to exist using known laws of physics and biology.

An important part of the functioning of the human body is its electrical nature. There are electrical currents flowing through the nerves, through the blood, and through all the organs and cells. And while these currents are very weak when compared with the electrical current flowing through the wiring in your home, they are exactly the right strength for the human body and in fact are a necessary part of its life sustaining processes.

This idea is demonstrated by the electrocardiogram which is a medical instrument used to measure the electrical activity of the heart. It’s interesting to note that this electrical activity can be measured anywhere on the body, showing that the heart’s energy is present throughout the body. There are similar instruments to measure the electrical activity of the brain and nervous system—electroencephalogram--and the muscles--electromyogram.

Ampere’s Law states that when an electric current flows through a conductor, an electromagnetic field is created around the conductor. Therefore every cell, tissue, and organ in the body has its own electromagnetic field. There are medical devices used to measure the body’s magnetic fields. The measuring of the magnetic field is a more accurate method of measuring the activity of the body’s organs than measuring the electrical activity because the tissues do not affect magnetic fields they travel through whereas electrical currents do. Some of these devices have similar names to those that measure the electrical activity–magnetocardiogram, magnetoencephalogram, and the magnetomyogram. Another one of these devices is called a SQUID (Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) and has been used worldwide to study the electromagnetic nature of the human energy field.

Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction states that a change in an electromagnetic field will induce a similar change in electrical flow in conductors close by and therefore in their electromagnetic fields. In this way, every aspect of the human body, mind, and emotions are connected to and affecting each other through electromagnetic induction. This scientifically based understanding validates the basic concept of holistic medicine.

Through the use of magnetograms, it has been found that each organ in the body has a pulsing electromagnetic field. When the organ is healthy, it pulses within a certain range of frequencies, but when it is unhealthy, it moves out of this healthy range. As an example, the healthy range for nerve tissue is in the 2 Hz range, bone is about 7 Hz, 10 Hz for ligaments, and higher frequencies for skin and capillaries. It has also been found that the heart creates the strongest field, which has been measured to a distance of 15 feet.

The hands of healers have been found to produce strong pulsing electromagnetic fields, whereas pulsing fields are not found around the hands of non-healers. When a healer treats someone who is sick, the healer’s hands begin pulsing at a rate that the unhealthy organs or tissues they are treating need to be healthy. Through the process of magnetic induction or Faradays Law, the healer’s hands induce the healthy frequency into the unhealthy electromagnetic field of the organ thus helping the organ to return to a healthy state.

If you’d like to read more about the scientific basis of Reiki and energy medicine, I suggest you download the following article: Science and the Human Energy Field, by James Oschman, Ph.D. Dr. Oschman was an academic scientist who worked in the fields of cell biology, biophysics and physiology and specialized in the field of electron microscopy – the study of the microscopic structure and function of the tissues and cells of the human body. After receiving benefit from alternative medicine, he began to focus on research into its scientific basis. Here is the link to the file: http://www.reiki.org/download/OschmanReprint2.pdf

Scientific research has been done that has shown that the positive effects of Reiki come from more than the placebo effect. For more on this read: Autonomic Nervous-System-Changes During Reiki Treatment: A Preliminary Study. This study was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Volume 10, Number 6

There are other scientific studies that demonstrate the positive effects of Reiki so of which you can find on this web page: http://www.reiki.org/Healing/ReikiHospitalsHome.html Clearly this is a new field of study and the research done so far is preliminary, but it’s positive results indicate that more studies are warranted.

William Lee Rand

But scentists haven't confirmed that the human energy field closely resembles something called "reiki." Reiki adherents may purport that, but their definition is in an incompatible metaphor. To shoehorn the two together by edits to that effect are misleading supposition therefore, and unfortunately violate our No original research policy. Regards, --Fire Star 00:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

== Fire Star, are you now acknowledging that subtle energy exists such as chi or ki? When you make a statement such as; " But scentists haven't confirmed that the human energy field closely resembles something called "reiki.", can you site your relevant and current sources and give further clarification on what you are trying to convey? Are you now saying that hands-on healing may have some scientific basis but just not Reiki hands on healing? Have you bothered to even look at any of the listed sources here or do you consider yourself to be an expert in this field?

Please start listing your sources before you make your comments so that we may review them for validity.

Tom 05

Ummm, you don't seem to understand the argument I am making. Scientists are aware that the human body works energetically through its various systems. Scientists don't, however, ever say that that energy is "reiki" or resembles something that they believe exists that is called reiki. They don't use the word reiki when they speak of galvanic skin responses. They don't use the word reiki when they talk about the calories produced by metabolic oxidation, the electrical action of motor nerves or proprioceptive nerves or the hydraulic properties of peristalsis. No, they use those names instead. Only reiki people use the term reiki. How can I give a source for something that doesn't happen? It would be a lot easier to list an example of where the Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, the Mayo clinic, the CDC or some major research university or teaching hospital says "Golly, maybe the mechanism behind synapses firing is really reiki!" Now, as for what I believe, since you haven't read the entire discussion here (in which I mention my qualifications several times) or looked at my user page, I will tell you that I am a professional internal martial artist. I've studied T'ai Chi Ch'uan in China and elsewhere from one of the classical families who invented the art as we know it today for 20 years now. I teach T'ai Chi and ch'i kung for rehab in 4 of my local area's hospitals and also lecture regularly on the subject for a local medical school. So, yes, I do believe in ch'i and its effects, but I've also been trained by my Chinese teachers to be incredibly sceptical of claims with no apparent basis in reproducible results, whether they be made by a T'ai Chi school, a qigong school, a yoga school, scientists, politicians, priests or magicians. There have been many medical studies (again as I've mentioned before on this talk page) that validate the usefullness of T'ai Chi for seniors and other patients. None of them talk about "ch'i", they concentrate on results. Ch'i as we use it is a metaphor for a mechanism of simultaneously coordinating all of the body's systems with respiration that we only use practically at high level (i.e. incredibly dangerous) martial training. It is a useful and practical metaphor but without the right foundation it too quickly becomes an overly subjective focus for the credulous, ending up a source for claims of a miraculous "cosmic cash machine" to the New Age crowd who are unaware (or reluctant to admit) that years of kung fu have to be dedicated to understanding it, much less using it effectively and safely.

So now you know. I'm not going to sneer at you or ridicule you, or reiki, and even though we have to stick with a dry conditional report, there is plenty of room for compromise and still staying true to the spirit of the facts. We can report on reiki at great length in all pertinent detail, but the qualifying language has to be there, just as it has to be for any purely faith based system. I'm sorry that you think that makes reiki look bad, but I can't help that. I'm happy to discuss this at any time with anyone, and I would rather work with you than against you. I hope this helps. --Fire Star 23:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should be balanced and scholarly

This is my first visit to Wikipedia. I stumbled across the article on reiki, and I learned how the Wikipedia is written.

Some aspects of the article are accurate and well-presented, but other areas are less than balanced and scholarly. I have a few specific observations, but first let me comment on my background and qualifications:

> I can speak and read Japanese. > I am a technical and expository writer by profession. > I have been a very serious student of metaphysics, religion, and psychology for over 30 years. > I am well acquainted with reiki and I even know a practitioner or two. I am also well acquainted with many who take a skeptical point of view on this and similar subjects. > I certainly espouse neither point of view, personally. I'm just a witness at the way station.

Here are my thoughts:

While it is understandable that advocates of reiki would write about the matter with a subjective air, it is of course inappropriate that their faith-based nuances and evangelical intent be part of an encyclopedia article. However, it is equally inappropriate that such an article be a forum for scientific reductionism or its other subtle cousins.

The article should explain what reiki is, and what reiki is about, without nuance. This is the job of the professional writer.

Clearly, the second paragraph of the opening section is utterly biased and, frankly, amateurish. Again, the core presentation of a subject should be about its essence, not about who or what is opposed to it.

Now, in the midst of numerous sub-topics about reiki, if the subject of "controversy" is a significant sub-topic (and perhaps it is), then the section on controversy is appropriate. But it would have to be re-worded in an objective way, in a way that balances the debate between the two schools of thought. And if anything is sure, these two schools have fought--in a myriad of disguises--from time immemorial.

Despite many detailed strengths in the rest of article (is it, for example, correct that the word "reiki" to the everyday Japanese person means "spooky"), various "anti" barbs pop up repeatedly. One example--and not so subtle--is the section on cults. This section is offensive not only for the reasons I have already mentioned, but also because it betrays a fundamental lack of education about what a cult is.

One of the most salient characteristics of a lack of education is the inability to see the bias in one's own thought and word. FireStar, if you have written this article, or condoned the current content, you need to seriously take a good look at yourself and what your job is. And if you can't find the necessary middle ground here, you should consider finding another way to express your talents.

If I were your senior editor, I would fire you. But I'd still give you a good reference.

Sincerely,

69.255.45.27 07:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. FYI, if you'd look at the article's history, you'd see that I didn't write the majority of the article. I actually wrote relatively little of it. I assume "professional writers" are obligated to research their editorials? But it is your first visit, you'll learn our expectations soon enough. I'm sorry your opinion of my contributions is so low, but I'm nevertheless not ready to stop editing just yet as a result. I'm buoyed in that at least a few of my peers here thought well enough of my editorial skills to entrust me with a bucket, which I see as my main purpose with articles like this. I look out for well meaning but uncritical editors, as well as obvious vandals. You should see the history of debate over at our cult complex of articles, BTW. Now, as for you main proposal regarding the article, unfortunately, not everyone agrees about what reiki "is". So, we say what reiki fans say it is and we say what reiki critics say it is. Since there is lttle agreement, I, for one, feel qualifying language (your "barbs") should be there. Since the professional world you claim to come from apparently approves of giving good references for poor performance, it's a good job I'm a volunteer from another profession entirely! Regards, --Fire Star 14:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user "69.255.45.27," I would challenge you (and I say this in the nicest way possible) to put up, or shut up. I have been watching the Reiki page for a while and I may, in the near future, clean it up a little bit. But thus far Fire Star has kept a good handle on things. Fire Star seems to agree with me that Reiki is utterly bogus, and yet the article is representative of many views which Fire Star has not excised. Of course the ultimate goal is "NPOV" but sometimes, due to the nature of the wiki, the next best thing is something like "balanced representation of the available points-of-view." (You can see my comments above for why this isn't completely desireable, but hey, work-in-progress, right?)

At any rate, here's my challenge to you. You want to fire Fire Star? Edit the article. Criticism, even constructive criticism, is pretty pointless on Wikipedia. You don't like something? Fix it. You have that ability. Of course if you "fix" it in a way others disagree with, they'll fix it right back. Instead of telling us how qualified and brilliant you are (frankly I am unimpressed with your brags), show us how qualified and brilliant you are. Contribute. Alaren 23:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, this person (User:69.255.45.27|69.255.45.27) is spot on and tells it like it is; "The article should explain what reiki is, and what reiki is about, without nuance. This is the job of the professional writer. Clearly, the second paragraph of the opening section is utterly biased and, frankly, amateurish. Again, the core presentation of a subject should be about its essence, not about who or what is opposed to it." I know that if must be hard for some to read the truth about this article and not respond with vitrol.

Tom05

Tom: first, no need to create a new heading when responding to current threads. This discussion page is getting a little crazy, wonder what we can do about that?

Second: did you even read my comments? Particularly where I suggest to the anonymous user "You don't like something? Fix it. You have that ability. Of course if you 'fix' it in a way others disagree with, they'll fix it right back." I might suggest the same to you. You seem very upset with the content of the article, yet I don't see you fixing it. Then again, since you're not bothering to register, maybe you are. I'd start there if I were you.

Third: I think the biggest problem being faced here is that many the individuals who like yourself demand "just the facts" are being disingenuous. Is there a critical bent to this article? Yeah, I would actually agree that the criticisms should be toned a little more professionally. I intend to do it when I get some time to do it right, if no one beats me to it. But in the past, people who removed those criticisms replaced them with glowing advertisements or outright falsehoods. The article on Reiki should never make statements like "Reiki cures X" or "Reiki fixes Y" when scientific studies don't back that up. (Note I said studies. I don't care how many doctors "endorse" Reiki. I want controlled, double-blind, verifiable research.) Making statements like "Reiki practitioners claim X" is probably fine, but to that it is reasonable and proper to add "but this has proven unverifiable" or even "this has proven false" when studies show as much.

As far as I can tell, the only people really upset with the article are those who would prefer a sort of Reiki advertisement, a veritable tract of Reiki propaganda. Reiki is bogus. It's garbage. Scientists have proven it repeatedly. Personally, I find that highly relevant, not unprofessional. I think it may even be excessivley generous to those taken in by this hoax to even allow this article to be as thorough as it is in exploring Reiki's history and claims, but in the interest of attempting some kind of NPOV I won't be the one to make those cuts.

I will, however, defend the volunteers who have made this page as good as it is, under the circumstances. The anonymous "editor" makes some good points and I'm sorry if I did not sufficiently acknowledge that--but the anonymous "editor" did not bother to fix the perceived problems and so I don't think s/he has much room to talk. Alaren 01:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Tom05 and Alaren. Well, we can always archive the page again if it gets too long! Tom05 hasn't read what I wrote apparently, so I'll reiterate: not everyone agrees on what reiki actually is. It is that simple. There is what reiki and holistic people say it is, and there is what its critics say it is. We should report both, but with qualifiers. If we say one or the other of them is absolutely the "correct" view, then that violates NPOV. Again, I'm sorry that doesn't seem fair to the true believers, but there are literally hundreds of similar articles here on wikipedia, so I'm definitely not going to get too worked up, or fired, anytime soon. Cheers! --Fire Star 04:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)