Talk:Reiki

Lead again

I see it's been rewritten since I looked yesterday. Now, in general my view is that having the names of modern scholars/whatevers in the lead of an article like this should mostly be avoided, though a summary of their views is often WP:LEAD-appropriate. Also, none of the names included have very much coverage in this article, so repeating them in the lead is not "appropriate weight". That's my 2 qi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the situation seems to going from bad to worse. I do not see how any of these names are important to the topic of Reiki. This seems like POV pushing, something which I have been accused of to no end concerning this article (and I have edited the article all but twice to add a POV tag).

I have at least tallied the current consensus on the very bottom of the appropriate section of WP:NPOV/N, but I think it is discourteous to be significantly editing the article while it is being debated without notifying the appropriate discussion venues. -Konanen (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand the complications it causes, when we end up debating a moving target. But we don't really want editing to stop just because a discussion is going on.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I agree with you. We needed to do a little more WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY work here. I think we are making progress on that point. We could consider whether it should be shortened (e.g., "rejected by scientists as pseudoscience and by the Catholic Church as a superstition"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's nice to see this discussed here, rather than where many watchers of this page may not be watching. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is exactly what I'm doing by adding a few quotes to the lead. Due weight requires the lead, like the body, give prominence to mainstream RS. That means both amount and prominence of mention. Fringe views get a little bit of explanation. That's all. Therefore I disagree with "should be shortened". Unlike homeopathy, Reiki is so fringe it does not get nearly as much mention in scientific or scholarly sources as does homeopathy, an old, well-established, quackery. Parity of sources applies here, so the quotes and mainstream authors deserve prominent mention and deserve the biggest piece of the pie.

I have no doubt that it can be done more elegantly, so keep the suggestions coming. Note that these discussions have an effect. Even though I disagree with most of the objections, quackery is now gone from the lead! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask who Jann Bellamy is, and why they are mentioned? I could do a simple search, but I am trying to take as little outside knowledge as I can while I am trying to judge the article from the point of view of a naïve user. I can kind of see why Stephen Barrett is mentioned (though, is there a way to attribute the characterisation to the NCAHF directly, which might be more topic-relevant?), but the other person makes no sense without context. –Konanen (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's in the body, "a lawyer and critic of alternative medicine". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Konanen, she is a prominent anti-quackery activist, author, lawyer, and involved in many aspects of the legal, legislative, ethical, and other aspects of the medical/alternative/pseudoscience consumer protection world. She has warned of the dangers of chiropractic neck manipulations and other problems. I have known of her, her many writings, and her work for a couple decades. You should check her out. She's pretty famous in her own right. Barrett is the most prominent authority on quackery and medical pseudoscience. We don't mention much about them because the article is about reiki, not them. Feel free to add more context. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that naming and quoting individuals is necessary for LEADFOLLOWSBODY. It should be enough to say "rejected by many groups", instead of "Alice used this word and Bob said that". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't do that in a lead, except out of an abundance of caution, per my long-time motto here: "When in doubt, use attribution." I could just say it and only use the citations as the attribution. Let me give that a try. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article could benefit from taking a leaf out of our article on The Force (Star Wars). That is, a lot more coverage of what reiki actually is, in-universe. Currently the article is almost completely focused on debunking the concept. That's fine, it's pseudoscience, it needs a good debunking - but there's so much more this article could be. Imagine if our The Force article spent 90% of its length explaining and re-explaining that it's fictional, that it was made up by George Lucas in order to make money, that it doesn't actually work in real life, that light sabers aren't real... Great, we get that, but we'd quite like to read something fun about midichlorians, and I think we can manage that without making people think they are real. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to deal with WP:MEDRS and WP:BALANCE. Still, some expansion of Conceptual basis, Technique, Training, certification and adoption and History is not by default unreasonable. History may be a little easier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, looking at The Force, the in-universe Depiction section seems to be a not glaringly awful part of the whole. At a glance, most of the article is out-of-universe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I definitely don’t mean to write the reiki article from an in-universe perspective, just that we could stand to include a lot more information about what reiki practitioners do and believe, and why, and what all those hand movements are supposed to mean, and how it relates to other “energy” beliefs and traditions, and so forth. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

[1] may have something useful for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Barnards.tar.gz, that makes sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Opinionated article

This article seems opinionated to me. There are several documented scientific findings to support this. 69.170.237.186 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. Reiki is preposterous on its face. Researching its effectiveness is a waste of funds, and it might be breaching medical ethics. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Biased article

This article comes off as one-sided with no neutral description or reports of those that have had positive tangible benefits from Reiki. There is a severe bias in the writing of this article. Many people have had very profound effects from Reiki on acute injuries, including myself. It works on a very subtle level that is hard to measure and most people can’t perceive. That doesn’t mean it isn’t real. 2603:800C:4C40:2C5:F4EA:F62E:A618:1066 (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BIGMISTAKE. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, using the Catholic Church as a reference to debunk something as superstition is laughable. 2A02:C7C:756A:EC00:1D5B:7D6D:D473:9F9A (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The concept of "superstition" was originally a Christian idea. Or maybe I was wrong: Greek-Roman Paganism also had a concept of superstition. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That does not mean they get to decide what is superstition. There is no reason to include the opinion of one religion on another belief, unless there is a real lot of secondary sources about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a much simpler point: the Catholic Church has the power to ban Reiki from Catholic hospitals. That means we don't have to pass judgment whether the Catholic Church is "right" or "wrong" in doing that. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We could just not mention it, because it is WP:UNDUE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't have a dog in this fight, but this is the most absurdly biased article I've ever seen here, and I've used and contributed to Wikipedia decades. The level of bias is akin to having a Wikipedia article on God read, "The concept of God is a silly, outmoded superstition used to con credulous people. God does not exist." While an atheist with an axe to grind would think that was great, it would not be a fair or unbiased treatment of the subject. This article doesn't need to be tweaked--it needs to be rewritten by someone with some semblance of objectivity. 174.20.140.172 (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be more akin to faith healing, which also doesn't work, and as Wikipedia relays. Reiki makes claims about the real world and health. Bon courage (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Does God exist? Nobody knows: neither the theists, nor the atheists. It is a question which does not admit an objective answer.

Here at Wikipedia we do not try to give quackery even a semblance of acceptance. That would be totally incompatible with website policy, such as WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, and WP:ECREE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2024

The current article in its present state arguably violates Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point of View) Policy: Wikipedia requires content to be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV):

Neutral Point of View (NPOV) means presenting information without bias, in a way that does not favor any particular perspective, theory, or ideology. Articles should reflect the full range of significant views on a subject, especially on topics where opinions are divided. Wikipedia explicitly does not aim to present "truth" as an editorial stance. Instead, it aims to reflect what reliable sources say about a topic.

Articles must include all significant views on a subject in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. For example:

- If 80% of sources describe something as pseudoscientific, the article should reflect that consensus.
- If 20% of sources argue for its benefits or cultural significance, that viewpoint should also be included, but with less emphasis, to match its prominence in reliable academic or cultural discourse.

The policy encourages coverage of all significant viewpoints but opposes giving equal weight to fringe theories that lack widespread acceptance. This is often referred to as "undue weight"—Wikipedia does not present minority viewpoints as if they were equally accepted alongside mainstream ones. Favour of only a psuedoscientific would fall victim to undue weight in this instance as editors have used predominantly sources against it and neglected incorporating scientific studies in favour (listed below).

Verifiability and Use of Reliable Sources To maintain neutrality, reliable sources must back all statements in Wikipedia articles. Reliable sources generally include: - Peer-reviewed scientific journals - Academic publications - Books published by reputable publishers - Mainstream media outlets (with an editorial process) The NPOV policy is closely tied to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, which states that any content added to the platform must be verifiable and sourced from reliable, published references. This helps prevent bias or personal opinions from being added to articles.

Avoiding Advocacy Advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. Editors must not use Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs, political stances, or ideologies. Articles should avoid language that endorses or discredits a particular view. This includes emotional or promotional language, which could skew the presentation. For instance: Neutral example: "Reiki is described by its practitioners as a form of healing, though it is widely regarded as a pseudoscience by the scientific community."

Neutral Tone and Language Articles must maintain a neutral tone, avoiding emotionally charged or judgmental language. Even controversial topics must be described objectively, presenting facts as they are reported by sources. For example: - Biased tone: "Reiki is a complete scam." - Neutral tone: "Reiki is widely regarded as a pseudoscience and lacks empirical support, though practitioners claim it offers therapeutic benefits."

Religious and Cultural Sensitivity Articles on religious and cultural topics must also adhere to the NPOV policy. While it is acceptable to explain the beliefs associated with a practice like Reiki (which has spiritual components), the article must differentiate between belief and fact, ensuring that it represents beliefs without endorsing or dismissing them. For example, the article might describe how Reiki is viewed in Buddhist traditions or by practitioners, but also reflect the scientific perspective.

Controversial Topics For controversial subjects (like alternative medicine, pseudoscience, or religious practices), neutrality is even more critical. Editors must ensure that the article: -Covers all major viewpoints. -Is supported by reliable sources on each side of the debate. -Avoids bias or presenting one viewpoint as definitive if the subject is contested.

This remains a key issue for the present article. The article has not adequately covered all major viewpoints, has not presented reliable sources to properly support evidence contrary to the psuedoscientific approach, and is ultimately biased in favour of psuedo scientific mainly highlighting examples of what is arguably extortion, lack of scientific consensus, and has felt the need to also include that the Christian church has claimed this is based on superstition which comes across as hypocritical given the heavy emphasis on psuedoscience.

Enforcement of NPOV Policy Violations of the NPOV policy can be challenged by any editor. If an article is found to be biased, it may be flagged for review. Editors might: -Remove or edit biased content. -Tag the article for neutrality concerns, prompting community review and discussion. -Engage in formal dispute resolution if the issue is severe.

I opt to edit the biased content willing to accept this may be an honest mistake on the part of the previous editor who based their argument on biased evidence. One of the most problematic issues with the present article is that a number of the references presented are unreachable. Sources 7,8, and 9 cannot be reached (currently unavailable), source 10 states that there is insufficient evidence to say whether or not Reiki is useful for people over 16 years of age with anxiety or depression or both - it does not claim that it is ineffective, it claims that there is insufficient evidence, these are not the same thing.

The article 'Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials' by M. S. Lee, M. H. Pittler, E. Ernst is also biased in its critical approach whilst critiquing the bias of other approaches - it should be pointed out that disagreement is part of healthy academic and scholarly discourse and should not be mistaken for conclusive and closed evidence. As the article by Lee, Pittler, and Ernst (source 2) point out, Reiki is officially recommended by some National Health Service Trusts and The Prince of Wales’s Foundation for Integrated Health for the management of chronic diseases. If reiki were adverse to health conditions then it would not be endorsed by such institutions. Reiki is, first and foremost a spiritual and religious practice not a scientific one and should be based on these merits, practitioners should not claim that it has physical health benefits nor extort their clients - this is illegal for any practice. In the same way rhetorically emphasising that it is psudeoscientific without also judging it on its own values (religious & spiritual) misrepresents it.   The Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy is designed to maintain objectivity and balance across Wikipedia’s articles. It requires that all significant viewpoints be represented fairly, in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, while avoiding advocacy, original research, and biased language. When disputes arise, they are addressed through consensus-building and discussion, ensuring that articles remain neutral and well-sourced.

The Wikipedia article on Reiki uses only sources critical of it and omits other perspectives (such as cultural or religious significance, testimonials from practitioners, or how Reiki is used as a complementary therapy), this arguably violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

While Reiki is often viewed sceptically by the scientific community, some studies and academic sources support or explore its therapeutic effects, primarily from the perspective of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). These sources tend to focus on patient-reported benefits, stress reduction, and its use in complementary healthcare, even if they acknowledge the lack of solid scientific evidence. This is not mentioned in the article unless in criticism and has denied these articles to be judged on their own merits. In light of this information I propose editing the material to present a more balanced view in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy by incorporating studies and evidence in favour of reiki. This does not mean the removal of the statement that reiki is psudeo scientific, as we have seen clinical evidence is lacking conclusive evidence in favour or against, however it has not been judged on its spiritual or religious nature. Rather than continually emphasising that Reiki is a psuedoscience in a rhetorical manner befitting of bias I propose using statements more in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy such as: "Reiki is widely regarded as a pseudoscience and lacks empirical support, though practitioners & clients claim it offers therapeutic benefits.". This statement is more in line with the NPOV policy and more reflective of the reports for and against reiki. The article as it stands makes use of rhetorical strategy found in political discourse repetitively claiming it is psudeoscience which is aimed to persuade readers to a particular line of thinking. Furthermore the former editor made no mention of The Reiki Federation, a professional organisation which is active in the UK and Europe (https://www.reikifed.co.uk/) responsible for setting professional standards for Reiki practitioners in the UK and Europe. There is also no mention of 'The Reiki Manual' (2010) written by Penelope quest that instructs people on the proper practice of reiki and is considered one of the core texts among legitimate practitioners.

It should also be kept in mind that practices and beliefs do not successfully last 2500 years unless it provides something of use for the human condition even if there is lacking scientific evidence to support or refute it, religion in general remains a perfect example of this.

Below are a selection of sources (both up to date and older) that can be used in favour of Reiki in direct contrast to those against. These sources range from studies on the effects of Reiki to discussions about its place in healthcare and CAM, they have been peer reviewed and published through academic discourse:

Miles, P., & True, G. (2003). "Reiki – Review of a biofield therapy: History, theory, practice, and research." Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 9(2), 62-72. - Overview of Reiki's history and theoretical basis in energy healing, with a focus on patient-reported benefits.

McManus DE. Reiki Is Better Than Placebo and Has Broad Potential as a Complementary Health Therapy. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2017 Oct;22(4):1051-1057. doi: 10.1177/2156587217728644. Epub 2017 Sep 5. PMID: 28874060; PMCID: PMC5871310. - Of the 13 suitable studies, 8 demonstrated Reiki being more effective than the placebo effect, 4 participants found no difference but had questionable statistical resolving power, and only one participant provided clear evidence for not providing benefit.

Vitale, A. T., & O'Connor, P. C. (2006). "The effect of Reiki on pain and anxiety in women with abdominal hysterectomies: A quasi-experimental pilot study." Holistic Nursing Practice, 20(6), 263-272. - A pilot study assessing Reiki’s effects on post-operative pain and anxiety. The results indicated that the experimental group which received reiki reported less pain and requested fewer analgesics than the control group.

Bowden, D., Goddard, L., & Gruzelier, J. (2011). "A randomised controlled single-blind trial of the effects of Reiki and positive imagery on well-being and salivary cortisol." Brain Research Bulletin, 85(3-4), 197-203. - Examines the effects of Reiki on well-being and stress levels through cortisol measurement. The reiki group had reduced illness symptoms.

Thrane, S., & Cohen, S. M. (2014). "Effect of Reiki therapy on pain and anxiety in adults: An in-depth literature review of randomized trials with effect size calculations." Pain Management Nursing, 15(4), 897-908. - A review of Reiki’s effects on pain and anxiety across various studies.

Billot M, Daycard M, Wood C, et al. Reiki therapy for pain, anxiety and quality of life. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 2019;9:434-438. - Preliminary results show Reiki has positive effects in end of life population

Freitag, V. L., Dalmolin, I. S., Badke, M. R., & Andrade, A. D. (2014). Benefits of Reiki in older individuals with chronic pain. Texto & Contexto-Enfermagem, 23(4), 1032-1040. - A qualitative study that showed reiki significantly improves chronic pain complaints.

Morero, J.A.P., de Souza Pereira, S., Esteves, R.B. and Cardoso, L., 2021. Effects of reiki on mental health care: a systematic review. Holistic Nursing Practice, 35(4), pp.191-198. - Demonstrates Reiki's effectiveness in reducing anxiety, depression, and stress symptoms.

Zadro, S. and Stapleton, P., 2022. Does Reiki benefit mental health symptoms above placebo?. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, p.897312. - Reiki consistently demonstrates a greater therapeutic effect over placebo for some symptoms of mental health.

VanderVaart, S., Gijsen, V. M., de Wildt, S. N., & Koren, G. (2009). A systematic review of the therapeutic effects of Reiki. the Journal of alternative and complementary medicine, 15(11), 1157-1169. - Though from 2009 this study outlines the issues with studies on reiki up to this point and proposes to refine the methodology to improve data collection.

Webster, L. C., Holden, J. M., Ray, D. C., Price, E., & Hastings, T. M. (2020). The impact of psychotherapeutic Reiki on anxiety. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 15(3), 311-326. - The results of this study suggested potential therapeutic benefits for integrating PR (psychotherapeutic Reiki) with traditional counseling.

Dyer, N. L., Baldwin, A. L., & Rand, W. L. (2019). A large-scale effectiveness trial of Reiki for physical and psychological health. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 25(12), 1156-1162. - The results from this large-scale multisite effectiveness trial suggest that a single session of Reiki improves multiple variables related to physical and psychological health.

Bowden, D., Goddard, L., & Gruzelier, J. (2011). A randomised controlled single‐blind trial of the efficacy of Reiki at benefitting mood and well‐being. Evidence‐Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2011(1), 381862. - This paper conducted two studies and concluded that both studies suggest that Reiki may benefit mood. This is again in line with the placebo effect.

Morse, M. L., & Beem, L. W. (2011). Benefits of Reiki therapy for a severely neutropenic patient with associated influences on a true random number generator. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 17(12), 1181-1190. - The immediate clinical result in this study was that the patient could tolerate the high-dose interferon regimen without missing doses because of absolute neutropenia. The patient had been given a 5% chance of clearing the virus and remains clear of the virus 1 year after treatment.

Olson, K., Hanson, J., & Michaud, M. (2003). A phase II trial of Reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients. Journal of pain and symptom management, 26(5), 990-997. - A research into palliative care on cancer patients showed that Reiki had some impact even if placebo.

Amarello, M. M., Castellanos, M. E. P., & Souza, K. M. J. D. (2021). Reiki therapy in the Unified Health System: meanings and experiences in integral health care. Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 74, e20190816. - A qualitative study into people's experiences of reiki this article also shows that, contrary to the emphasis on extortionate prices and unhelpful nature of reiki presented by the editor in the wikipedia article, this paper shows reiki practitioners conducting volunteering for the sick to help people overcome a state of suffering.

Winters, M. (2023). Reiki: An effective self-care practice. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 30, 100603. - Hospital staff experienced an average decrease in self-reported stress of 60% based on pre and post surveys.

Rosada, R. M., Rubik, B., Mainguy, B., Plummer, J., & Mehl-Madrona, L. (2015). Reiki reduces burnout among community mental health clinicians. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 21(8), 489-495. - This study made a point of differentiating from 'sham Reiki' (a phenomena mentioned in Lee, Pittler, & Ernst's article) and showed Reiki reduces burnout among mental health clinicians.

These papers in favour of reiki in conjunction with those against demonstrate an ongoing debate not a conclusive result in either direction which is not what the current Wikipedia article on reiki shows. I will point out that many of the above studies show there is benefit to reiki. It has a positive effect of symptoms though not underlying causes. This is similar to the placebo effect somthing that, in spite of numerous studies showing this, the editor claimed to have discredited. A quick search in google scholar with the key words 'benefits of reiki' produced 21,800 results as opposed to 'reiki a pseudoscience' which produced 1250 results.

I hope this review and request for editing are received cordially, and that the reviewers find it satisfactory. I trust that prompt action will be taken to reinforce Wikipedia's NPOV policy by incorporating balanced text and supporting evidence. ReasonableDiscourse (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia officially endorses this pespective: WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done no edit specified. Bon courage (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What kind of format would you prefer me to use to make edits to the page? ReasonableDiscourse (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

A "change X to Y" format, and any such edits should have prior consensus from discussion here first. Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ReasonableDiscourse (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

A quick search in google scholar with the key words 'benefits of reiki' produced 21,800 results as opposed to 'reiki a pseudoscience' which produced 1250 results.—debunked by the website policy WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

this paper shows reiki practitioners conducting volunteering for the sick to help people overcome a state of suffering—there are ways in which Reiki therapists can actually help suffering people through volunteering, but actual Reiki therapy is not one of them. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Energy field is a bogus concept, which does not exist in any science, including quantum mechanics. I searched arXiv and bioRxiv for "energy field" or "energy fields", and there are not many results: real scientists do not consider the concept seriously. While energy fields do exist in Star Wars and Blake's 7, they don't exist in science. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)