From Abracadabra to Zombies

• a
• b
• c
• d
• e
• f
• g
• h
• i
• j
• k
• l
• m
• n
• o
• p
• q
• r
• s
• t
• u
• v
• w
• x
• y
• z

reader comments: reiki

8 April 2009
I would like to respond to your article on Reiki. My mother is a Reiki practitioner, and I have undergone many Reiki sessions. I do not believe in its spiritual aspects, but I have experienced what I conclude to be physiologically conditioned responses, and/ or placebo benefits from Reiki. As with many homeopathic remedies, there's an unfortunate amount of self-delusion and straight up fraud that takes place with Reiki. However, according to what I've been told, Reiki should always be given and taught freely, and moreover, the self-proclaimed 'true' practitioners would never propose Reiki as a substitution for medical treatment, only as an adjunct to it. So let's assume that not every Reiki practitioner in an opportunistic, fraudulent, profiteering scam artist, in the same manner that we assume not every Catholic priest is a child-molester. As the science surrounding placebos and physiological conditioning has shown time and again, there is, in fact, a very real, very strong mind-body connection.

After listening to my mother and her Reiki friends talk at length, it seems apparent to me that, all spiritual beliefs aside, the difference between 'conditioning' and 'ki balancing' is essentially a linguistic one. Skeptics and spiritualists are talking about the same process, but calling it something different. There's nothing in the philosophy of Reiki that precludes scientific fact(s). But many Reiki practitioners claim there's some mystical force that science hasn't advanced far enough to measure yet, while the skeptics claim it's complete superstition, which science will *never* measure, because it doesn't exist.

I think the best explanation is, actually, somewhere in the middle. The outward actions involved in 'rebalancing Ki' and the outward actions involved in classical conditioning are identical, because they are, in effect, completely arbitrary. In either case, some outside stimulus programs a neurological response. If some people understand 'rebalancing Ki' more easily than 'reprogramming neuroreceptors,' it doesn't really matter in the end, so long as they're garnering some relief or enjoyment from the experience-- just like with acupuncture.

reply: There is one major difference between thinking you are rebalancing ki and thinking you are manipulating a person by suggestion and conditioning: you can scientifically test the latter. In fact, they've already been tested under many different conditions and scientists are advancing our understanding of how they work. We know no more about ki today than we did a thousand years ago. The reason for this is obvious. Ki is a chimera. More important, by scientifically studying the power of suggestion and conditioning we can learn their limits and avoid potential harm.

Incidentally, I once claimed to my mother's Reiki group that the hitherto scientifically un-detected Ki energy might, in fact, be completely measurable, but listed under neurological terms. Their response was to agree, after I explained it in-depth. Because they're spiritualists, not scientists, they understand and classify their experiences more intuitively than logically. In their version of perception, things get different labels; but that doesn't mean those labels are necessarily wrong-- just different. As a skeptic myself, I am ALL about dispelling myths and overcoming superstition, and I feel both hamper the progress of humanity. But as good skeptics, we should take care to avoid stereotypes (i.e. "Reiki is superstition fueled by self-delusion and/or self-serving fraud") and assumptions (i.e. "Western scientific terms and definitions are the only ones relevant"). As long as the philosophy in question allows its proponents to think with an open, critical mind, it shouldn't be immediately relegated or dismissed. There are many different vocabularies that describe matter and its relation to energy. To Einstein, they were obviously identical, but only because he was using very specific definitions of both terms. That doesn't mean that the DOE can all of a sudden start calling itself the Dept. of Mass and expect everyone to conflate the two.

reply: Nor can the DOE call itself the Dept of Ki. In any case, I disagree with the notion that ki and conditioning are just two linguistic ways of referring to the same thing. I think it is clear that one refers to a substance and the other to a process. The process can be studied; the substance cannot because it doesn't exist.

My point (likely over-stated now, but regardless...), is that vocabulary and context are simply methods of communicating reality. Language is mutable and almost always dependent on the users' perceptions and opinions. But no matter how you choose to define an apple, it remains an apple regardless. True Reiki has the same potential benefits as any other conditioned placebo (like acupuncture), even if the skeptics dismiss *all* of its practitioners based on the fraudulent/ deluded actions of a *fraction* of its practitioners.

Ian Massey Univ. of South Carolina Dept. of Languages, Literature, and Culture Columbia, SC

__________

24 Dec 2003
In the 90's, I watched my choices for CEU's (Continuing Education Units) in Nursing, slowly start to weigh heavy, into the Holistic, and esoteric healing arts. A lot of RN's were (and are) into Reiki.

In '99, I was 29, and working in a private psych hospital. I was taking a break in the back room. I was suddenly jolted by the loud sound of shattering glass, and a messy series of thuds. I ran into the Nursing Station. The glass window to the patient corridor had been shattered, and my rapidly cycling, schizophrenic patient, was slowly trying to get up from the floor, and staring at the medication cart. I was alone in the station, I had to control my patient, for both our safety, and he was ignoring my commands. I had no choice but to try and bring him flat to the ground, and restrain him. I started shouting "Code Green!" (Which was the hospital, all staff code, for patient restraint.) I noticed that the other RN on duty was running toward the Nurses Station, so I assumed she would use the phone, and page the Code Green. I jumped on the patient. He was delusional, tough, and combative.

The RN arrived in the Nursing Station, witnessed the struggle I was loosing, and I think she panicked. Instead of procedure, she pointed at the patient and I, with her arm outstretched, she started to subvocalize, and draw things in the air. I told her to help me. She said was helping. She was calming the patient. It was Reiki! I was astonished.

I had seen homeopathic remedies in the break rooms. Also, Nurses performing Reiki on each others migraines, and sores, or after a hard day. But, Reiki never affected me until my life was in danger, and the CEU's of mysticism, came home to roost!

A Mental Health Worker came out of an elevator, and called the Code Green. Other staff arrived and helped me with restraint of the patient, as well as the Reiki Nurse, who I guess decided that her effort had worked in calming the patient enough for her to physically come to my aid. I wrote the RN and her "Fire Finger" up, and nothing came of it. The incident was the camels straw. 2 months later, I fled from 6 years of Nursing, and changed careers.

Your article on Reiki was kind of validating for me. Thanks.

James R Johnson

---

26 Jul 1999
I'm not sure what your information source is, but I wish to comment on part of the entry for Reiki at your site.

Reiki healers differ from acupuncturists in that they do not try to unblock > a person's ki but to channel the ki of the universe so that the person heals.

Actually, by channeling the Reiki energy, a practitioner does unblock the chakras and natural flow of energy in the patient.

The reiki master claims to be able to draw upon the energy of the universe and actually increase his or her own energy while performing a healing.

NO! Reiki practitioners never claim to be channeling anything but Reiki. Personal energy is NEVER used. Anyone who claims to be using personal energy to heal is NOT using Reiki.

reply: I didn't mean to imply that the reiki healer uses personal energy to heal, but that the healer's energy increases during the healing....or so some healers say.

Reiki healers claim to channel reiki into "diseased" individuals for "rebalancing." If the healing fails it is because the patient is resisting the healing energy.

Reiki practitioners channel Reiki into anyone desiring it. Most importantly, any ethical practitioner will tell the client/patient that Reiki is NEVER a substitute for medical treatment, but only a way of assisting healing. Reiki DOES NOT guarantee a cure, and the ethical practitioner WILL NEVER tell the patient that they are to blame if they are not healed. They will, however, explain that Reiki energy always works toward what is the highest good for the patient. That is not always a cure... sometimes it is just an acceptance of dealing with an incurable disease.

reply: I'm glad to hear this, but some of your colleagues apparently do not agree with you.

I humbly suggest that you do a bit more research into Reiki and update your misleading and erroneous entry.
Lisa Rodrigues Reiki Master/Teacher, Usui Shiki Ryoho

reply: Take a browse of some of the sites I link to on the reiki page. You may be surprised at what your colleagues are claiming.

reiki