Energy Healing Explained: What Science Says About Reiki, Healing Touch, and “Healing Energy”
Energy Healing: Therapy, Complementary Practice, or Pseudoscience?
Energy healing has become increasingly visible in wellness culture. Search for “energy healing” online and you will encounter claims that invisible energy can be balanced, redirected, cleared, or restored to improve physical and emotional health. Practitioners may describe sensations of warmth, tingling, relaxation, emotional release, or a feeling of restored balance during a session.
But an important question remains:
Is energy healing a genuine medical therapy, or is it pseudoscience?
The answer depends partly on what is meant by “energy healing.”
Some practices are primarily relaxation or wellbeing experiences. Others make much stronger claims: that practitioners can manipulate an invisible biological or spiritual energy field, remove blockages, accelerate physical healing, treat disease, or restore health without conventional medical intervention.
Those claims require scientific evidence.
At present, the strongest scientific conclusion is that there is no established evidence that the invisible healing energy proposed by practices such as Reiki exists, and Reiki has not been clearly demonstrated to be effective for treating medical conditions. The U.S. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) specifically states that there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of the energy field proposed in Reiki, while research into its clinical effectiveness has produced inconsistent results and has generally suffered from methodological limitations.
That does not mean every person who receives an energy-healing session experiences nothing. A person can experience relaxation, comfort, reduced anxiety, a sense of connection, or temporary symptom relief without the underlying explanation offered by the practitioner being scientifically correct.
This distinction is essential.
A treatment can produce a subjective experience without proving its proposed mechanism. Feeling better is real; the explanation for why someone feels better is a separate scientific question.
What Is Energy Healing?
“Energy healing” is not one standardized medical treatment. It is an umbrella term covering numerous practices that differ in their origins, terminology, philosophy, and proposed mechanisms.
Common examples include:
Reiki
Therapeutic Touch
Healing Touch
Pranic healing
Qigong healing
Spiritual healing
Biofield therapies
Some forms of energy medicine
Certain traditional healing practices involving concepts of life force or vital energy
Although these approaches differ considerably, many share a basic concept: health is influenced by an energy field, life force, or subtle energy that can supposedly be detected or manipulated.
In Reiki, for example, practitioners place their hands lightly on a person or hold them just above the body with the intention of directing energy and supporting the body's natural healing response. The NCCIH describes Reiki in essentially these terms but also notes that there is no scientific evidence for the energy field proposed by Reiki practitioners.
This creates a critical distinction between the practice and the explanation of the practice.
A person lying quietly while another individual places their hands nearby may experience relaxation. That observation does not establish the existence of a transferable healing energy.
Similarly, if someone reports feeling calmer after meditation, massage, prayer, conversation, or a quiet therapeutic encounter, the improvement is not necessarily evidence that an invisible energy field was altered.
What Does “Energy” Mean in Science?
One reason energy-healing terminology can sound scientifically plausible is that “energy” is a legitimate scientific concept.
Physics and biology deal extensively with energy.
The human body uses chemical energy. Cells maintain electrical gradients. The nervous system generates electrical activity. The heart produces measurable electrical signals. The body emits heat and interacts with electromagnetic radiation.
None of this establishes the existence of the particular “healing energy” proposed by Reiki or related practices.
This is an important example of scientific-sounding terminology being used outside its established scientific meaning.
In science, a proposed form of energy should be measurable, definable, reproducible, and consistent with established physical principles. Researchers should be able to formulate testable hypotheses concerning what the energy is, how it behaves, how it interacts with the body, and under what conditions it produces measurable effects.
If a proposed energy cannot be reliably detected or distinguished from ordinary physiological processes, its existence remains unsubstantiated.
The fact that humans possess measurable biological and physical energy does not automatically validate every claim involving “energy.”
This is one of the fundamental reasoning errors involved in many pseudoscientific claims: taking a legitimate scientific term and extending it far beyond what scientific evidence supports.
What Does Science Say About Reiki?
Reiki is probably the best-known modern form of energy healing.
During a Reiki session, a practitioner generally places their hands lightly on or above different parts of a person's body. The stated purpose is to facilitate healing or restore energetic balance.
According to the NCCIH, however, Reiki has not been clearly shown to be effective for any health-related purpose. It has been investigated for conditions including pain, anxiety, and depression, but the research has generally been of limited quality and the findings have been inconsistent.
The NCCIH also makes an especially important statement: there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of the energy field believed to be involved in Reiki.
That conclusion matters because Reiki's proposed mechanism depends upon the existence of such an energy field.
If a therapy claims:
a specific energy exists,
practitioners can influence that energy,
changing that energy produces therapeutic effects,
then all three parts of the argument require investigation.
Evidence that a person feels better after Reiki does not by itself establish the first two claims.
What Have Clinical Studies Found?
Research into Reiki and similar practices is complicated.
Some studies have reported improvements in outcomes such as anxiety, pain, fatigue, or subjective wellbeing. Other studies have found little or no meaningful difference between Reiki and control conditions.
A systematic review indexed in PubMed examined clinical Reiki trials and found substantial methodological problems in the available literature. The review reported that most of the included studies were rated poorly according to its methodological quality assessment and concluded that the limitations prevented a definitive conclusion about Reiki's effectiveness.
This illustrates an important principle in evidence-based medicine:
A collection of studies is not automatically strong evidence simply because studies exist.
Researchers must examine:
sample size,
randomization,
blinding,
control groups,
outcome measures,
statistical analysis,
reproducibility,
publication bias,
study registration,
attrition,
researcher expectations,
and whether the observed effect is clinically meaningful.
A small study reporting a positive result is not equivalent to a large, rigorously designed randomized controlled trial producing the same result.
Likewise, several weak studies cannot necessarily compensate for a lack of high-quality evidence.
Why Can Energy Healing Feel Effective?
This is perhaps the most interesting question.
If a person receives energy healing and genuinely feels better, does that prove energy healing works?
No—but it also does not mean the experience is imaginary.
Human wellbeing is influenced by numerous psychological, physiological, and social factors.
An energy-healing session may involve:
quiet surroundings,
focused attention,
gentle physical contact,
expectation of improvement,
supportive conversation,
relaxation,
breathing more slowly,
reduced sensory stimulation,
a temporary break from stressful environments,
feelings of being cared for,
and a strong therapeutic ritual.
All of these factors can affect how a person experiences pain, anxiety, stress, and wellbeing.
This is where the placebo effect and related contextual effects become important.
The placebo effect is not simply “imagining” that something works. Expectations, conditioning, the therapeutic environment, and interactions with healthcare providers can influence subjective symptoms and certain physiological responses.
Suppose someone enters a quiet room, lies down for an hour, disconnects from their phone, receives reassuring attention, and expects to feel calmer afterward.
It would not be surprising if they did.
But we would still need to determine whether the improvement resulted from a special energy transfer, ordinary relaxation, expectation, interpersonal interaction, or some combination of factors.
Good clinical research is designed to separate these possibilities.
The Difference Between Feeling Better and Treating a Disease
This distinction is crucial when evaluating energy healing.
Imagine a person with mild stress who attends a Reiki session and reports feeling relaxed afterward.
That is a relatively modest claim.
Now imagine the practitioner claims that Reiki can:
eliminate cancer,
cure diabetes,
reverse infections,
replace surgery,
remove tumors,
repair damaged organs,
or eliminate the need for prescribed medication.
These are vastly different claims.
The stronger the medical claim, the stronger the evidence required.
A relaxation technique may reasonably be evaluated as a method for promoting subjective wellbeing. A claim that an intervention can cure a serious disease requires rigorous clinical evidence demonstrating meaningful improvements in disease-specific outcomes.
This is why the phrase “natural healing” should not automatically be interpreted as “medical treatment.”
The body has extraordinary natural healing mechanisms. Cuts close, bones remodel, immune systems respond to infections, and physiological systems continuously repair themselves.
But the existence of natural healing does not establish that a particular alternative therapy controls or accelerates those processes.
Is Energy Healing Pseudoscience?
The term “pseudoscience” should be used carefully.
Not every traditional or complementary practice is necessarily pseudoscience. Some practices contain components that can be investigated scientifically, and some nonconventional interventions have eventually acquired evidence for specific uses.
The World Health Organization distinguishes traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine from conventional biomedicine and emphasizes the importance of evidence-based integration. Its current Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034 explicitly prioritizes strengthening the evidence base and ensuring that interventions integrated into healthcare are safe and effective.
That is a useful framework.
The scientific question is not:
“Is this practice traditional?”
Nor is it:
“Do people believe in it?”
The question is:
“Does the intervention produce reliable benefits beyond appropriate controls, and is the proposed mechanism supported by evidence?”
When a practice makes claims about an invisible healing energy that has not been scientifically demonstrated, those specific claims can reasonably be characterized as unsupported or pseudoscientific.
That does not require claiming that every experience associated with the practice is false.
The Hallmarks of Pseudoscientific Energy-Healing Claims
Certain patterns should make consumers skeptical.
1. An undefined mechanism
A practitioner may repeatedly refer to “energy,” “vibrations,” “frequency,” “quantum energy,” or “biofields” without defining these concepts in measurable scientific terms.
Scientific terminology alone does not make a claim scientific.
A legitimate scientific hypothesis should be sufficiently precise that researchers can test it.
2. Claims that cannot be falsified
Consider a claim such as:
“Your energy is blocked, but the blockage cannot be measured by conventional instruments.”
If there is no possible observation that could prove the claim wrong, it becomes extremely difficult to test scientifically.
A hypothesis must make predictions that could potentially fail.
3. Reliance on testimonials
Testimonials can demonstrate that someone believes an intervention helped them.
They cannot establish efficacy.
People recover spontaneously. Symptoms fluctuate. Diagnoses can be uncertain. Multiple treatments may occur simultaneously. Memory is imperfect. Expectations influence perception.
Clinical evidence exists partly to overcome these limitations.
4. Scientific-sounding language without scientific substance
Terms such as “quantum,” “frequency,” “cellular vibration,” and “electromagnetic resonance” are sometimes used in alternative-health marketing in ways that do not correspond to their technical scientific meanings.
This is sometimes called science-washing or scienceploitation: the use of scientific terminology to make unsupported claims appear more credible.
5. Resistance to testing
A particularly serious warning sign occurs when proponents claim that conventional scientific methods cannot evaluate their therapy—or that negative results merely demonstrate that scientists do not understand the therapy.
A scientifically credible intervention should ultimately be open to rigorous testing.
6. Expanding claims
Another warning sign is a therapy that begins with a modest claim such as “promotes relaxation” and eventually becomes a supposed treatment for virtually every disease.
The broader the claimed therapeutic scope, the more extraordinary the evidence required.
Reiki vs. Evidence-Based Medical Treatment
It is helpful to compare the structure of Reiki with conventional evidence-based medicine.
Evidence-based medicine does not mean that doctors know everything or that every conventional treatment is effective. It means that medical decisions should incorporate the best available research evidence alongside clinical expertise and patient circumstances.
A medication, surgical procedure, psychotherapy, or medical device is expected to undergo systematic evaluation appropriate to its intended use.
Researchers ask questions such as:
Does it work?
For whom?
Compared with what?
How large is the effect?
How reliable is the effect?
What are the risks?
What are the contraindications?
Does it improve meaningful patient outcomes?
Can independent researchers reproduce the findings?
The same standards can be applied to energy healing.
There is no reason to exempt Reiki from scientific evaluation simply because its practitioners describe it as spiritual, traditional, holistic, or complementary.
If Reiki produces clinically important effects, rigorous research should be capable of detecting them.
What About “Biofield” Research?
Some proponents of energy healing use the term biofield rather than “healing energy.”
Biofield research attempts to investigate fields or interactions associated with living organisms. This is an area in which terminology and proposed mechanisms vary substantially.
The existence of measurable biological signals—such as electrical activity generated by the heart and brain—is not controversial.
The controversial step is moving from those established signals to the claim that a distinct, therapeutically manipulable field exists and can be altered by an energy healer to treat disease.
That hypothesis requires direct empirical evidence.
It cannot be established simply because the human body generates electrical or electromagnetic phenomena.
This distinction is especially important for readers because “biofield” can sound more scientifically legitimate than “mystical energy,” even when a particular claim has not demonstrated a scientifically established mechanism.
Can Energy Healing Be Used Safely?
According to the NCCIH, Reiki has not been shown to have harmful effects and appears generally safe.
But “safe” does not necessarily mean “effective,” and the risk profile can change depending on how the practice is used.
The most important concern may be indirect harm.
Consider someone with a serious medical condition who believes an energy healer can replace conventional treatment.
If that person delays diagnosis, stops medication, refuses surgery, or abandons evidence-based treatment because a practitioner promises energetic healing, the consequences can be serious.
This is why responsible use of complementary practices matters.
A person may choose a relaxation-oriented complementary practice while continuing appropriate medical care. That is very different from using energy healing as a substitute for proven treatment.
Can Energy Healing Be Considered Complementary Therapy?
The word complementary is important.
Complementary medicine is generally used alongside conventional healthcare rather than instead of it.
The WHO's current strategy emphasizes evidence-based integration of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine and highlights the need for safe and effective practices.
This suggests a sensible principle for consumers:
A complementary practice should complement appropriate healthcare, not undermine it.
If someone finds a Reiki session relaxing, there may be little reason to object to the experience as a personal wellness activity, assuming appropriate safety and no interference with medical care.
The situation becomes more problematic when practitioners make unsupported claims about diagnosing or curing disease.
Energy Healing and Mental Health
Energy healing is frequently marketed for anxiety, stress, emotional trauma, depression, and general psychological wellbeing.
Again, the evidence needs to be separated from personal experience.
A calm environment, interpersonal support, ritual, expectation, and focused attention may all influence how someone feels.
But that does not demonstrate that an invisible energy field is responsible.
For clinically significant anxiety or depression, evidence-based psychological and medical treatments should remain central. Depending on the condition, these can include structured psychotherapies, medication, lifestyle interventions, or combinations of treatments.
A complementary relaxation practice may coexist with those treatments, but it should not be presented as a scientifically established replacement for them.
Why Personal Experience Is Not Enough
One of the strongest arguments made in favor of energy healing is:
“I tried it, and it worked for me.”
Personal experience matters—but it is not the same thing as scientific evidence.
Suppose someone has chronic pain that fluctuates between 3 and 8 on a ten-point scale. They attend an energy-healing session when their pain happens to be at an eight. The following morning, their pain is four.
The improvement is real.
But what caused it?
Possibilities include:
natural symptom fluctuation,
sleep,
expectation,
relaxation,
regression to the mean,
concurrent medication,
attention and reassurance,
reduced stress,
placebo-related effects,
or the proposed energy intervention.
Without appropriate controls, we cannot confidently identify the cause.
This is one reason randomized controlled trials are valuable.
The Problem of Regression to the Mean
Regression to the mean is particularly relevant to alternative medicine.
People often seek treatment when symptoms are at their worst.
If symptoms naturally fluctuate, extreme symptoms will tend to become less extreme over time even without an effective intervention.
For example, someone may seek energy healing during a particularly painful week. If the condition naturally fluctuates, there is a reasonable chance that symptoms will improve afterward.
The person may understandably attribute the improvement to the treatment.
This does not mean they are dishonest or unintelligent. It means humans naturally search for causes.
Scientific research helps distinguish genuine treatment effects from patterns that occur naturally.
Does That Mean Every Positive Study Is Wrong?
No.
It would be equally unscientific to assume in advance that every study showing a positive result must be fraudulent or meaningless.
The correct approach is to evaluate the total evidence.
A convincing therapeutic effect should generally become more reliable as:
studies become larger,
methodologies improve,
controls become stronger,
outcomes become more objective,
researchers become independent,
and results are replicated.
For Reiki, the problem is that the overall evidence has not established a clear therapeutic effect, while the proposed energy mechanism has not been scientifically demonstrated.
The NCCIH therefore does not consider Reiki clearly effective for health-related purposes.
That conclusion is stronger than saying “nobody knows anything,” but more cautious than saying “every person who practices Reiki is deliberately deceiving people.”
What Does the Placebo Effect Tell Us?
The placebo effect is sometimes misunderstood as proof that alternative medicine works.
It is not.
If an intervention produces a placebo response, that tells us something about the effects of expectations, treatment context, conditioning, and the patient-practitioner relationship.
These effects can be meaningful.
For example, pain and anxiety are subjective experiences, and their intensity can be influenced by psychological and contextual factors.
But demonstrating a placebo-related benefit does not validate an unsupported biological mechanism.
If a Reiki session helps someone relax because the session creates a calming ritual and expectation of relief, that does not demonstrate that an invisible energy field was transferred.
In fact, this distinction can make the discussion more constructive.
People can acknowledge the value of relaxation, attention, ritual, and human connection without having to accept an unsupported explanation for those effects.
How Consumers Can Evaluate Energy-Healing Claims
If you are considering energy healing, ask several questions before paying for treatment.
What exactly is being claimed?
“Helps me relax” is a modest claim.
“Cures cancer” is an extraordinary medical claim.
The evidence should match the claim.
What is the proposed mechanism?
Can the alleged energy be measured?
Is there a defined physical quantity?
Has independent research demonstrated it?
What do high-quality studies show?
Do not rely solely on practitioner websites or testimonials.
Look for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and assessments from established health organizations.
Are the studies independent?
Research funded or conducted by people with a financial interest in selling the treatment deserves particularly careful scrutiny.
That does not automatically invalidate a study, but it increases the importance of independent replication.
Is the practitioner discouraging conventional treatment?
This is a major warning sign.
A practitioner who tells a patient to stop medically necessary treatment is crossing a potentially dangerous line.
Are there extravagant promises?
Claims to treat dozens of unrelated diseases with one invisible mechanism should trigger skepticism.
Is the price proportional to the evidence?
Consumers should be cautious about expensive treatment packages based on unsupported claims.
Energy Healing vs. Meditation, Massage, and Relaxation
Another useful distinction is between what people actually do during a session and what practitioners say is happening.
A person receiving an energy-healing session may spend an hour lying quietly in a comfortable environment.
A massage recipient may receive physical stimulation and relaxation.
A meditation participant may slow their breathing and focus attention.
A psychotherapy patient may receive structured interpersonal support.
All can influence subjective wellbeing through different mechanisms.
The existence of benefits from relaxation or human interaction does not validate every theoretical explanation attached to a wellness practice.
In practical terms, consumers should ask:
What part of this experience is actually responsible for the benefit?
That question can lead to more useful and scientifically grounded healthcare decisions.
Why Energy Healing Remains Popular
If scientific evidence is limited, why does energy healing continue to attract millions of people?
There are several possible reasons.
Modern healthcare can be stressful, impersonal, expensive, or difficult to access. Some patients want more time, attention, touch, spirituality, or emotional support than conventional healthcare routinely provides.
Energy-healing sessions often provide exactly those experiences.
They can also offer a simple narrative:
the body is out of balance,
energy has become blocked,
the practitioner identifies the imbalance,
the energy is restored,
healing follows.
Such explanations can be psychologically satisfying.
By contrast, real medical explanations are often complicated and uncertain. Many chronic conditions have multiple causes and no single cure.
Humans naturally prefer coherent stories.
But a satisfying explanation is not necessarily a scientifically correct explanation.
The Difference Between Respect and Scientific Acceptance
Criticizing the scientific evidence for energy healing does not require mocking people who use it.
People may approach Reiki or other energy practices for cultural, spiritual, emotional, or relaxation-related reasons.
Respecting someone's personal experience does not require accepting every medical claim associated with that experience.
Likewise, scientific skepticism should not become an excuse for dismissing patients who report feeling better.
A balanced position is possible:
The experience may be meaningful, while the proposed mechanism remains unsupported.
This distinction allows discussions of complementary medicine to become more rational and less polarized.
So, Is Energy Healing Real?
The answer depends on what “real” means.
Is the experience real?
Yes.
People can genuinely experience relaxation, comfort, emotional reassurance, warmth, tingling, calmness, and subjective improvement during or after energy-healing sessions.
Is there evidence that Reiki's proposed healing energy exists?
According to the NCCIH, no scientific evidence currently supports the existence of the energy field proposed in Reiki.
Is Reiki proven to treat disease?
No. The NCCIH states that Reiki has not been clearly shown to be effective for any health-related purpose, and the available research has been inconsistent and often limited in quality.
Can someone use it as a relaxation practice?
That is a different question from whether it is a scientifically established medical therapy. A person may find a session relaxing, provided it does not replace necessary medical treatment.
Should energy healing replace conventional medical care?
No. There is insufficient evidence to justify using Reiki or comparable energy-healing practices as substitutes for evidence-based diagnosis and treatment.
Final Verdict: Therapy or Pseudoscience?
Energy healing occupies an unusual position.
As a personal wellness or relaxation experience, it may provide subjective benefits to some people. Quiet attention, therapeutic ritual, human contact, expectation, and relaxation can all have genuine effects on how a person feels.
As a medical treatment based on a transferable invisible healing energy, however, the evidence is considerably weaker.
For Reiki specifically, the current scientific evidence does not establish the existence of the proposed energy field, nor does it demonstrate clear effectiveness for treating health conditions. Systematic reviews have identified methodological limitations in the research, while major health authorities such as the NCCIH remain cautious about its clinical effectiveness.
Therefore, describing energy healing as an established medical therapy would go beyond the available evidence.
Calling every energy-healing experience meaningless would also go too far.
The most scientifically defensible conclusion is:
Energy healing has not been established as an effective medical therapy, and its proposed healing-energy mechanism lacks scientific validation. Claims that it can diagnose, cure, or replace conventional treatment should therefore be regarded with strong skepticism.
Whether one uses the broader label “pseudoscience” depends on the specific claim. A practitioner offering a relaxing spiritual ritual is making a different claim from someone asserting that invisible energy can cure cancer.
The crucial test is evidence.
If a treatment claims to heal disease, it should be tested as rigorously as any other medical intervention. Tradition, testimonials, personal conviction, and scientific-sounding vocabulary cannot substitute for reproducible evidence.
That is ultimately the most useful lesson from the debate over energy healing:
A treatment should be judged not by how mysterious its explanation sounds, how long it has been practiced, or how many testimonials exist—but by whether high-quality evidence shows that it works, for whom, and compared with what.
Frequently Asked Questions About Energy Healing
Is energy healing scientifically proven?
No. Energy healing is a broad category, but practices such as Reiki have not been scientifically established as effective medical treatments. The NCCIH reports that there is no scientific evidence supporting the energy field proposed in Reiki and that research into its health effects has produced inconsistent results.
Is Reiki pseudoscience?
Reiki's claim that practitioners can manipulate a specific healing energy is unsupported by established scientific evidence. The practice can be described as a complementary or spiritual practice, but claims that its proposed energy field is a scientifically demonstrated therapeutic mechanism are not supported.
Can Reiki cure diseases?
There is no reliable scientific evidence establishing Reiki as a cure for diseases. It should not be used as a replacement for appropriate medical diagnosis or treatment.
Why do people feel better after energy healing?
Possible explanations include relaxation, expectation, placebo and contextual effects, attention from the practitioner, reduced stress, natural symptom fluctuations, and other psychological or physiological factors. Feeling better does not by itself demonstrate that an invisible energy was transferred.
Is Reiki dangerous?
Reiki itself appears generally safe according to the NCCIH. The greater concern is indirect harm if someone uses it instead of necessary medical treatment or delays professional diagnosis because they believe energy healing can cure a serious condition.
Is “healing energy” scientifically measurable?
The human body produces measurable forms of energy and electrical activity, but this does not establish the specific invisible healing energy proposed by Reiki and similar practices. The latter has not been scientifically validated as a distinct therapeutic energy field.
Can energy healing be used alongside conventional medicine?
A person may choose a complementary practice alongside conventional healthcare, particularly for relaxation or personal wellbeing. However, complementary practices should not replace medically necessary treatment, and claims of disease treatment should be evaluated against high-quality clinical evidence.
Conclusion
Energy healing sits at the intersection of spirituality, wellness, psychology, traditional practice, and modern healthcare.
Its popularity does not prove its effectiveness, but neither does skepticism require dismissing every person's subjective experience.
The evidence currently supports a cautious position. Reiki and similar energy-healing approaches have not been established as medical treatments, and the specific invisible healing energy proposed by Reiki has not been scientifically demonstrated. Research continues to investigate complementary approaches, but responsible healthcare requires separating plausible benefits—such as relaxation and supportive human interaction—from unsupported claims about invisible forces curing disease.
For anyone considering energy healing, the safest principle is simple:
Use evidence to evaluate medical claims, remain open to uncertainty, and never allow an unproven therapy to replace effective medical care.
The question is not whether energy healing sounds scientific.
The question is whether it survives scientific testing.
At present, the evidence does not establish energy healing as a proven medical therapy.
Primary sources and further reading
SEO keywords: energy healing, energy healing therapy, is energy healing real, energy healing pseudoscience, Reiki, Reiki therapy, Reiki scientific evidence, energy medicine, healing energy, alternative medicine, complementary medicine, energy healing benefits, Reiki benefits, Therapeutic Touch, Healing Touch, holistic healing, evidence-based medicine, pseudoscience, placebo effect, complementary therapies
