When you give 2 choices like you did in the above, you’ve framed the first choice to look silly thereby making the 2nd choice to look more correct. If God-Consciouness energy is the same as Ki, Chi and Prana how can you deny #1? And make no mistake, Reiki is not yoga. It does however use energy like yoga. So if you dispute #1, you dispute one of the basic premises of yoga.
I used pretty much the same description you did:
Reiki is much the same in that Rei (God Consciousness) guides the life force to areas
God-consciousness is definitely not one of the basic premises of Yoga. Prana is a natural force in Yogic philosophy, it is not supernatural. It is a subtle etheric force, similar to quantum forces. In any case I think the term “god consciousness” to describe the word Reiki is misleading, because from what I understand Reiki means universal lifeforce. In that sense it is very similar to the prana of Yoga.
Prana is of various kinds in Yoga: There is the prana in your body, which is subdivided into 5 types of prana based on the primary function it plays. There is also the prana we receive in the air we breath, in the rays of the sun or the prana in the universe itself(equivalent to Reiki) in the food we consume. Working with prana is the ability to manipulate and channel these subtle forces known as prana. Indeed, one of the ways of using this subtle force is to heal another person by directing either your own prana into them, or by directing prana channeled from another source. However, this is a very rare ability, and comes from the mastery of pranayama(literally: prana-control) which takes years of dedicated practice.
Again, as I said the new age tends to take on a very legitimate phenomenon(in this case quantum forces like prana) and trivialize and commercialize it. In this case the notion that receiving an “attunment” will give you the ability to manipulate and work with prana. This makes people believe they can pay their way into gaining mastery of prana control. The truth is, such ability does not come until years of mastery of Yoga.
This is not to say that there have been no genuine Reiki healers out there, who really can manipulate the energy, but I am saying that they are few and far between. The vast majority are just deluded people who have bought into the belief that they are Reiki practioners just because they have received “attunments” The whole modality is based on a sham premise.
And there is nothing wrong with my interpretation of the data. I did not dispute the study you mentioned. I merely stated there are just as many studies that show positive results.
You are not really making an attempt to understand the 2008 study. The studies that have shown positive effects of Reiki have not set up adequate controls and this is why the National Cancer Society etc have said the research has been generally quite poor. The 2008 study is one of the few studies which have set up a proper controlled randomized experiment to really test the efficacy of Reiki by setting up control groups. There were three groups: A Reiki group, a pretend/sham Reiki group and a normal relaxation group. The study showed conclusively that there was no statistically significant difference between the Reiki and the pretend and relaxation group. In other words Reiki did not pass the test. It proved to be no more effective than fake Reiki or normal relaxtion. The evidence is thus showing clearly that whatever benefits one receives from Reiki treatment is because of the relaxation one experiences during a session, but it has got nothing to do with any of the beliefs of Reiki. It makes no difference whether the practitioner is attuned or not.
You really don’t listen and read what people have written. You repeat the same things!
God-consciousness is definitely not one of the basic premises of Yoga. Prana is a natural force in Yogic philosophy, it is not supernatural. It is a subtle etheric force, similar to quantum forces. In any case I think the term “god consciousness” to describe the word Reiki is misleading, because from what I understand Reiki means universal lifeforce. In that sense it is very similar to the prana of Yoga.
I never said God-Consciousness is one of the basic premises of yoga. The concept of Ki is much the same. God-Consciousness is what guides. I believe I said this:
And make no mistake, Reiki is not yoga. It does however use energy like yoga. So if you dispute #1, you dispute one of the basic premises of yoga.
Rei is god consciousness, spiritual wisdom, universal and Ki is chi, life force, prana. Put them together. Quoting from my book by William Rand, "It is the God-Consciousness called Rei that guides the life energy Ki in the practice we call Reiki."
It is not supernatural.
In this case the notion that receiving an “attunment” will give you the ability to manipulate and work with prana
REIKI PRACTITIONERS DO NOT MANIPULATE ENERGY/PRANA!!!
And the silliness about choice #1 was your writing:
The universal god-consciousness energy that those practitioners who have been attuned to receive and work with this energy by drawing magical symbols into the air
It was the drawing magical symbols in the air that was silly. While this is true when you use the symbols, they are not called magical. It was how you framed it.
God-Consciousness is not the energy used in healing. God-Consciousness is what guides the energy. (universal, spiritual wisdom)
Finally, the study you quoted stated there was insufficient evidence as noted below:
As trials with such flaws are known to be likely to show exaggerated treatment effects, “THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE” to indicate that Reiki is effective as sole or adjuvant therapy for any medical condition, or that it has any benefits beyond possible placebo effects.[4][115] Placebo trials of Reiki are complicated by the difficulty of designing a realistic placebo,[116] although subsequent trials with adequate placebo or sham controls have shown no difference between the procedure and the control groups.[4]
What you are touting as the 2008 study is nothing more than a review of clinical trials. They looked at 9 studies and discovered flaws. Read it again. This was not A study of Reiki. Only 9 studies met their criteria for review and their conclusion was there was insufficient evidence that Reiki was effective. What it didn’t do in looking at these 9 studies is disprove Reiki.
LG, you are obviously not being honest with me here.
I never said God-Consciousness is one of the basic premises of yoga.
But you said:
If God-Consciouness energy is the same as Ki, Chi and Prana how can you deny #1? And make no mistake, Reiki is not yoga. It does however use energy like yoga. So if you dispute #1, you dispute one of the basic premises of yoga.
It is impossible having a discussion with somebody who keeps changing their position.
What you are touting as the 2008 study is nothing more than a review of clinical trials. They looked at 9 studies and discovered flaws. Read it again. This was not A study of Reiki. Only 9 studies met their criteria for review and their conclusion was there was insufficient evidence that Reiki was effective. What it didn’t do in looking at these 9 studies is disprove Reiki.
Again, you are not being honest with me here. The study I cited was not a review of clinical trials, but a randomized controlled experiment using three groups: a Reiki group, a sham group and a normal relaxation group. It is cited in the quote you cited:
although subsequent trials with adequate placebo or sham controls have shown no difference between the procedure and the control groups.
It seems like you are in denial LG. Why are you making this more difficult than it is? The fact is Reiki has not stood up to experimental testing. It is proven to be no more effective than a placebo.
To add: It is misrepresentative of the theory of Reiki to keep calling Reiki god-consciousness, it gives people a misleading impression that the Reiki system believes in god. The Reiki people believe in universal energy or universal life force and believe it can be received and transmitted:
Reiki (霊気?, English pronunciation: /ˈreɪkiː/) is a spiritual practice[1] developed in 1922 by Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui, which since has been adapted by various teachers of varying traditions. It uses a technique commonly called palm healing or hands on healing as a form of complementary therapy and is sometimes classified as oriental medicine by some professional medical bodies.[2] Through the use of this technique, practitioners believe that they are transferring universal energy (i.e., reiki) in the form of ki through the palms, which allows for self-healing and a state of equilibrium.[3]
Ki, Chi and Prana are equivalent. Reiki is what in Yoga would be called mahaprana or mahashakti
Surya deva you dont need years or decades of pratice to heal. If you have a pure heart and believe in your self also you can do it. How can we do it you might ask?
First do pranayama to raise your energylevel also abstain from sex for a longer period of time. Then also have faith in that you are a channel of that lifeforce going trough you. Never believe it is you who did the healing as this can boast your EGO. And if it didnt work dont give up, there has to be certain coincidences for someone to be healed not all can be that. Probably it could depend on their karma but i leave it unsaid.
Also never forget that what you did in previous incarnation is still there so if you did yogapractice in previous life it does not have to take decades. But all depends on how much progress you did in previous life of course, but as you are here i believe you have done lots in the past. So it does not have to take decades. All can do healing when we become pure. But if we let our ego give us hesitation we create blockages.
[I]Surya deva:
It seems like you are in denial LG. Why are you making this more difficult than it is? The fact is Reiki has not stood up to experimental testing. It is proven to be no more effective than a placebo. [/I]
Some things can not be measured can a scientist measure when a yogi heals someone? no he will say i cant explain what happened it is a miracle.He can not say what happened only that the person got well.
Also we cant do test as all people are not receptable to healing so a study would then fail. It is the timing and coincidences that let healing work. So if we decide a time where there will be a test it would most cetainly fail.
Does healing then not work?
The mind is powerful if you think you are sick you will get sick. Thing is people might have doubt then your prana will correct their energy and the healer will take that energy to him/her self and work through it. A healer always take the problem him/her self. IT does not evaporate in the thin air.
and it can have been the mind in the first place that made their energyfield blocked in or how they lived by unhealthy means… AS i said we all have the power to heal ourself. But if we are controlled by our mind how can we understand who we really are and our capabilities? Also we must have a pure heart, many reiki person maybe does not have that as well as many yogis now adays have tainted hearts. So if we conduct a yogitest it would most likely fail also dont forget that a real yogi would never accept such test his ego has no reason to prove it works… I dont think a real reiki master would agree to be put up to such a test either if it wasnt for the cause of the mankind of course. The truth does not have to advertise it self. It will be known when seen. So if someone have the truth the truth will speak for it self and will be know to others even if that person did not even open his mouth.
And dont struggle of which one is correct, understand we all have different experiences if LG says it works for her, it did how can we doubt that. Even if it was placebo actually if it was placebo she actually must have healed her self. Then it is even greater than getting help from others.
To heal our self we must be calm and in this hectic world is not easy to calm down. if your mind is busy it takes your prana all thoughts requires prana to work. So if we are calm the prana will rise and become more. Which is required for healing. So to learn how to be calm meditation is very effective.
Also it can be so that if our minds is having too much thoughts our prana lowers and we dont feel well because of that, then we only need to raise our prana to get well again.
Please read this carefully: Then show me where it says it is a specific study with a specific control group designed to prove/disprove Reiki. All you need to do is read the first line! Then read the other bold area. It is not a specific, independent study. It is a review of 9 studies.
QUOTE][B]A 2008 systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the evidence basis of Reiki concluded that efficacy had not been demonstrated for any condition.[4] Nine studies fit the inclusion criteria;[/B] a modified Jadad score of methodological quality was used, taking into account the difficulty of blinding practitioners. Non-randomised studies were excluded, as the potential for intentional or unintentional bias in such studies is large, rendering the results un-interpretable. [B]Overall, the methodological quality of the evidence base was poor as most of the studies suffered from flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting, with even high-ranking studies failing fully to control for placebo effects.[/B]"[4] As trials with such flaws are known to be likely to show exaggerated treatment effects, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that Reiki is effective as sole or adjuvant therapy for any medical condition, or that it has any benefits beyond possible placebo effects.[4][115] Placebo trials of Reiki are complicated by the difficulty of designing a realistic placebo,[116] although subsequent trials with adequate placebo or sham controls have shown no difference between the procedure and the control groups.[4]
[/QUOTE]
Also from the SAME Wiki page on Reiki: Note the word unproven.
clinical trials concluded that “the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.”[4]
You said:
To add: It is misrepresentative of the theory of Reiki to keep calling Reiki god-consciousness, it gives people a misleading impression that the Reiki system believes in god. The Reiki people believe in universal energy or universal life force and believe it can be received and transmitted:
What I said is:
Rei is god consciousness, spiritual wisdom, universal and Ki is chi, life force, prana. Put them together. Quoting from my book by William Rand, “It is the God-Consciousness called Rei that guides the life energy Ki in the practice we call Reiki.”
I have not said Reiki IS God-Consciousness. In Japanese, Rei translates to God-Consciousness, universal, spiritual wisdom. It is what it is and I cannot change the definition. This definition is universally accepted in the Reiki community.
It is proven to be no more effective than a placebo.
This is what the study said: Again, read carefully, especially the words insufficient evidence.
there is [B]insufficient evidence[/B] to indicate that Reiki is effective as sole or adjuvant therapy for any medical condition, or that it has any benefits beyond possible placebo effects.[4][115] Placebo trials of Reiki are complicated by the difficulty of designing a realistic placebo,[116] although subsequent trials with adequate placebo or sham controls have shown no difference between the procedure and the control groups.[4]
Then also have faith in that you are a channel of that lifeforce going trough you. Never believe it is you who did the healing as this can boast your EGO.
In Reiki, it is not the practitioner who heals. We are a conduit of healing. And yes, it can easily be a trap for those without pure intention. Ego takes hold.
You mentioned the Healer taking on the energy of the person they are healing. In Reiki we do not take any energy. We are mere guides.
Nice point:
and it can have been the mind in the first place that made their energyfield blocked in or how they lived by unhealthy means… AS i said we all have the power to heal ourself. But if we are controlled by our mind how can we understand who we really are and our capabilities? Also we must have a pure heart, many reiki person maybe does not have that as well as many yogis now adays have tainted hearts. So if we conduct a yogitest it would most likely fail also dont forget that a real yogi would never accept such test his ego has no reason to prove it works… I dont think a real reiki master would agree to be put up to such a test either if it wasnt for the cause of the mankind of course. The truth does not have to advertise it self. It will be known when seen. So if someone have the truth the truth will speak for it self and will be know to others even if that person did not even open his mouth.
The experiment was not designed to measure how the healing is taking place, it was designed to see if Reiki was any better than a placebo. The results show it was not. End of story
What does this mean for us? It means save your money, don’t pay ?60 per hour to some sham artist to heal you, and just listen to a nice relaxing cd at home and you will have exactly the same effect. Also spare yourself the expensive Reiki attunements, they are useless, a waste of time and money.
Also if you want serious recovery from a disease, do not look to Reiki, it is proven to be no better than a placebo. A placebo cannot cure or treat a disease, it only gives an illusion that one is getting better.
In Japanese, Rei translates to God-Consciousness, universal, spiritual wisdom.
Nope it doesn’t. It means ‘universal’ The whole word translates into universal energy/force. It does not translate to 'god consciousness" this is new-age fluff, which either you have added or somebody else has.
Nope as you would say. Please read this excerpt from an article by William Rand. My definition included[B] universal[/B] and did not say it was only God-Consciousness. You are misrepresenting my words.
The word Reiki is composed of two Japanese words - Rei and Ki. [B]When [/B][B]translating Japanese into English we must keep in mind that an exact translation is difficult.[/B] [B]The Japanese language has many levels of meaning[/B]. Therefore the context the word is being used in must be kept in mind when attempting to communicate its essence. Because these words are used in a spiritual healing context, a Japanese/English dictionary does not provide the depth of meaning we seek, as its definitions are based on common everyday Japanese. As an example, Rei is often defined as ghost and Ki as vapor and while these words vaguely point in the direction of meaning we seek, they fall far short of the understanding that is needed.
[B]
When seeking a definition from a more spiritual context, we find that Rei can be defined as the Higher Intelligence that guides the creation and functioning of the universe. Rei is a subtle wisdom that permeates everything, both animate and inanimate[/B]. This subtle wisdom guides the evolution of all creation ranging from the unfolding of galaxies to the development of life. On a human level, it is available to help us in times of need and to act as a source of guidance in our lives. Because of its infinite nature, it is all knowing. Rei is also called God and has many other names depending on the culture that has named it.
Are you purposefully not reading the study? You can say end of story all you like. You are not understanding the 2008 review.
The experiment was not designed to measure how the healing is taking place, it was designed to see if Reiki was any better than a placebo. The results show it was not. End of story
It was not an experiment. It was a review of previous studies. And yes, it is not complicated. Read it again. If you do not understand after reading it once again, there is no further discussing this with you.
Also if you want serious recovery from a disease, do not look to Reiki, it is proven to be no better than a placebo. A placebo cannot cure or treat a disease, it only gives an illusion that one is getting better.
If there is a serious illness, the Reiki practitioner will advise the patient to seek medical attention. Reiki can be an effective compliment to western medicine. And again, the 2008 [B]review[/B] did not disprove Reiki.
And here is the study you are referring to. Show me where it says they actually did A study, setting up a control group. If you read it, it states they [B]“searched data bases”.[/B]
Effects of reiki in clinical practice: [B]a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.[/B]
Lee MS, Pittler MH, Ernst E.
Source
Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, Exeter, UK. myeong.lee@pms.ac.uk
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and critically evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of reiki.
METHODS:
[B]We searched the literature using 23 databases from their respective inceptions through to November 2007 (search again 23 January 2008) without language restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad score.[/B]
RESULTS:
The searches identified 205 potentially relevant studies. Nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. Two RCTs suggested beneficial effects of reiki compared with sham control on depression, while one RCT did not report intergroup differences. For pain and anxiety, one RCT showed intergroup differences compared with sham control. For stress and hopelessness a further RCT reported effects of reiki and distant reiki compared with distant sham control. For functional recovery after ischaemic stroke there were no intergroup differences compared with sham. There was also no difference for anxiety between groups of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis. For diabetic neuropathy there were no effects of reiki on pain. A further RCT failed to show the effects of reiki for anxiety and depression in women undergoing breast biopsy compared with conventional care.
DISCUSSION:
In total, the trial data for any one condition are scarce and independent replications are not available for each condition. Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.
It is time to show new-agers science does not at all support Reiki, and has found Reiki no more effective than a placebo at best:
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES:
To determine whether provision of Reiki therapy during outpatient chemotherapy is associated with increased comfort and well-being.
DESIGN:
Double-blind, randomized clinical controlled trial.
SETTING:
Outpatient chemotherapy center.
SAMPLE:
189 participants were randomized to actual Reiki, sham Reiki placebo, or standard care.
METHODS:
Patients receiving chemotherapy were randomly placed into one of three groups. Patients received either standard care, a placebo, or an actual Reiki therapy treatment. A demographic tool and pre- and post-tests were given before and after chemotherapy infusion.
MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES:
Reiki therapy, sham Reiki placebo therapy, standard care, and self-reported levels of comfort and well-being pre- and postintervention.
FINDINGS:
Although Reiki therapy was statistically significant in raising the comfort and well-being of patients post-therapy, the sham Reiki placebo also was statistically significant. Patients in the standard care group did not experience changes in comfort and well-being during their infusion session.
CONCLUSIONS:
The findings indicate that the presence of an RN providing one-on-one support during chemotherapy was influential in raising comfort and well-being levels, with or without an attempted healing energy field.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING:
An attempt by clinic nurses to provide more designated one-to-one presence and support for patients while receiving their chemotherapy infusions could increase patient comfort and well-being.
merican nurses recently published an intriguing study with bizarre conclusions. They recruited almost 200 patients who were receiving chemotherapy for cancer. This is, of course, a difficult time for most cancer sufferers. There may be side-effects such as hair loss, nausea, fatigue, depression etc. All of these are bound to decrease patients’ wellbeing. So the nurses tested whether a session of reiki healing would improve the general wellbeing of their patients.
Reiki involves channelling “healing energy” into the body. Lots of people swear by it, but does it really work?
To find out, a proper control group is essential. The researchers therefore decided to compare reiki against “sham reiki” and against no such intervention. Sham reiki involved a non-reiki healer pretended to be a reiki healer. He was not trained in reiki and only followed the ritual of the treatment. So he did not send any “healing energy” to the patients whereas the reiki healer had been taught to do just that.
The results of this study were impressive: reiki did, in fact, make the patients fell better. Specifically, it increased the comfort and wellbeing of the patients in comparison with those who received no such intervention. Intriguingly, however, the sham reiki had exactly the same effects, and there were no differences between real and sham reiki.
What does this mean? The researchers were quite clear about their interpretation of the results. They believe reiki has been shown to work. Yet, I think the findings demonstrate exactly the opposite: genuine reiki is no better than sham reiki, thus it does not work.
Perhaps this is a rather academic matter of interpretation over which one could argue until the cows come home. However, the more pressing question is this: what should oncology teams throughout the world do about such findings?
Should they use reiki or similar therapies, as these American nurses seem to be suggesting? They clearly help desperately ill cancer patients, . Or should they avoid such treatments, because they are no better than placebo, as I and most scientists would suggest?
The scientific stance may appear heartless and cruel in light of the suffering of cancer patients, while the attitude of the nurses seems patient-centred and caring. This impression is wrong. By insisting that patients must not be treated with placebos like reiki, scientists also advocate that they receive treatments that demonstrably work better that placebo. For instance, massage has been shown to improve the wellbeing of cancer patients beyond a placebo effect. If a patient receives a massage with empathy, sympathy, time, understanding and dedication, she would benefit from the placebo effect – just like the reiki patient – but, in addition, she would also benefit from the specific effect of the treatment that massage does and Reiki does not offer.
Simply administering a placebo like reiki would deprive patients of the specific treatment effect. The allegedly caring approach of some enthusiasts of alternative medicine would therefore rob patients of benefits that they need and deserve. In other words, behind the smokescreen of alternative medicine – or integrated healthcare, to use the currently fashionable term – patients would not profit more, but less.
So who is heartless and cruel? Those who promote wacky placebos in the name of caring or those who stand up for science in the best interest of patients?
Fibromyalgia is a common, chronic condition that causes muscle pain and fatigue. People with fibromyalgia often turn to complementary and alternative therapies, such as Reiki, to help relieve their pain. Reiki is a form of energy medicine in which the practitioner seeks to transmit a “universal healing energy” to a person, either from a distance or through light touch. In general, evidence for energy medicine is scant, but anecdotal (subjective) literature suggests that Reiki can improve pain control and psychological well-being with few or no adverse effects.
NCCAM-funded researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle, conducted a clinical trial to determine whether Reiki might be beneficial as an adjunct therapy for fibromyalgia. In the trial, 100 people with fibromyalgia were recruited (81 completed the trial) and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups. Each group received twice-weekly treatments for 8 weeks by either a Reiki master or an actor (sham Reiki) working either through direct touch or from 2 feet away. The researchers measured subjective pain as well as physical and mental functioning, medication use, and health provider visits throughout the trial. The participants and the researchers who gathered and analyzed data were blinded—i.e., Reiki versus sham group assignments were not disclosed.
The study showed that neither direct touch nor distant Reiki affected pain or any of the other outcome measures. The researchers concluded that adults with fibromyalgia are unlikely to benefit from Reiki. They noted that energy medicine therapies such as Reiki should be rigorously studied before being recommended to patients with chronic pain. They also suggested design considerations for such studies.
References
Assefi N, Bogart A, Goldberg J, et al. Reiki for the treatment of fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2008; 14(9):1115–1122.
NTRODUCTION:
The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and critically evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of reiki.
METHODS:
We searched the literature using 23 databases from their respective inceptions through to November 2007 (search again 23 January 2008) without language restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad score.
RESULTS:
The searches identified 205 potentially relevant studies. Nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. Two RCTs suggested beneficial effects of reiki compared with sham control on depression, while one RCT did not report intergroup differences. For pain and anxiety, one RCT showed intergroup differences compared with sham control. For stress and hopelessness a further RCT reported effects of reiki and distant reiki compared with distant sham control. For functional recovery after ischaemic stroke there were no intergroup differences compared with sham. There was also no difference for anxiety between groups of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis. For diabetic neuropathy there were no effects of reiki on pain. A further RCT failed to show the effects of reiki for anxiety and depression in women undergoing breast biopsy compared with conventional care.
DISCUSSION:
In total, the trial data for any one condition are scarce and independent replications are not available for each condition. Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.
LG practices Reiki, no doubt charges for her services so obviously has vested interests in defending this sham art. But the evidence is showing us clearly Reiki is a sham. It should not be encouraged for the treatment of any disease and nor should it be encouraged in hospitals or by doctors or any funding to this sham art be commissioned. I mean send the funding where it is needed, like cancer research, or even Yoga research for that matter(tons of studies supporting Yoga)
And for those getting Reiki treatments or wanting attunements - save your money. Do some Yoga, listen to some soothing music, practice deep relaxation at home or get a massage. You will get exactly the same relaxing effects, and a lot more real benefits, without all the fluff and for a fraction of the price.
Nope as you would say. Please read this excerpt from an article by William Rand. My definition included universal and did not say it was only God-Consciousness. You are misrepresenting my words.
Who is William Rand, and why should I care about what he thinks? The philosophy of Reiki has got nothing to do with ‘god-consciousness’. You’re just adding more fluff to something that is already fluffy enough
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;73986]Once again, you completely skirted my post and all the misinformation you have been handing out.
Might I ask then why some of the major hospitals and Doctors are incorporating Reiki?
And yes, I do charge for my Reiki sessions. I also freely give it without charging.
I’m finished here.[/QUOTE]
Nope, once again you have refused to acknowledge the evidence, which I have now cited several times, that Reiki has been proven in scientific controlled studies to be no more effective than a placebo.
I know why you will not acknowledge the evidence, because you make a living of offering Reiki sessions to people How much is it per session, $100? Nice way to make money by profiteering on peoples beliefs!
It’s unfortunate how the general Yoga and spiritual community get grouped together with new-agers. This is why responsible and rational members of the Yoga and spiritual community need to self-regulate themselves by speaking up against the new age quacks and people turning Yoga and spirituality into a business.
I would like to cite this article published in the Guardian UK again, because it echoes the same voice of reason I am providing here:
The scientific stance may appear heartless and cruel in light of the suffering of cancer patients, while the attitude of the nurses seems patient-centred and caring. This impression is wrong. By insisting that patients must not be treated with placebos like reiki, scientists also advocate that they receive treatments that demonstrably work better that placebo. For instance, massage has been shown to improve the wellbeing of cancer patients beyond a placebo effect. If a patient receives a massage with empathy, sympathy, time, understanding and dedication, she would benefit from the placebo effect – just like the reiki patient – but, in addition, she would also benefit from the specific effect of the treatment that massage does and Reiki does not offer.
Simply administering a placebo like reiki would deprive patients of the specific treatment effect. The allegedly caring approach of some enthusiasts of alternative medicine would therefore rob patients of benefits that they need and deserve. In other words, behind the smokescreen of alternative medicine – or integrated healthcare, to use the currently fashionable term – patients would not profit more, but less.
So who is heartless and cruel? Those who promote wacky placebos in the name of caring or those who stand up for science in the best interest of patients?
The Yoga community and spiritual community at large need to stop endorsing this quackery and commercialization of Yoga/spirituality. We endorse it in two ways: by actively participating in these sham brands like quantum Yoga, Reiki, Secret, Law of Attraction and by by remaining silent on them and letting them get away with it.
What do we have to lose?
Purity and potency: Yoga and spirituality today has been diluted down so much that like in homoepathic medicine, the actual active ingredient is negligible. We are getting dumbed down and substandard products on spirituality.
Respect and credibility: Outside the Yoga and spiritual community, we are seen as quacks, irrational and fluffy people. That the scientific and academic community seldom want to be associated with us. This is because we are not making an effort to self-regulate ourselves by dissociating ourselves from the quacks and greedy merchants that riddle our community.
Thus as responsible members of the Yoga and spiritual community we need to promote more honest,scientific and rational thinking in our community and regulate against the quackery and commercialization. Say NO to Quantum Yoga - and Reiki
I finally took a look at the Quantum Yoga site, and I like it. What I find most interesting is that the woman behind it grew up in India and started practicing at an early age. She studied with both BKS Iyengar and Pattabi Jois in India, and is actively involved in practicing and teaching yoga. I don’t completely buy the connection she makes between yoga and quantum physics, but I find her yoga to be far more authentic than somebody whose only involvement with yoga is posting on the internet.
[QUOTE=Asuri;74007]I finally took a look at the Quantum Yoga site, and I like it. What I find most interesting is that the woman behind it grew up in India and started practicing at an early age. She studied with both BKS Iyengar and Pattabi Jois in India, and is actively involved in practicing and teaching yoga. I don’t completely buy the connection she makes between yoga and quantum physics, but I find her yoga to be far more authentic than somebody whose only involvement with yoga is posting on the internet.[/QUOTE]
