The Science of Healing using hands-on techniques like Reiki

Course details

Hands-on Healing has probably been around since humans first graced this earth (if not even before that) and healing through touch is a given ability for us all, though culturally this ability is lost and therefore requires a reconnection. For some people it is still passed down through the generations, others find their own way to healing but for the rest of us we usually need to reconnect to this ability through a spiritual practice (like learning Reiki for example). 

Since the birth of 'science', healing techniques have annoyed the eminent physicians of the day who often feel they have a monopoly on 'healing' and thus they call upon 'science' and scientists to label all the other healers as 'charlatans' (I must confess that I used to be one of those scientists!)

So this short course seeks to make some sense of 'hands-on' healing. Today, I have helped many people overcome mental, emotional, painful or physical conditions using a simple hands-on technique. So like all other healers, I believe the effects to be real and more than placebo. This of course is not enough for Newtonian Science which is not accepting of our subjective experiences (nor it seems of positive patient outcomes) but rather it requires 'proof' that something over and above our human imagination is at work here (and if it were just human imagination at work here wouldn't it be good for science to discover how to turn on this health benefit?)

In the course, I take a look at what Healers have done since the time of Mesmer to get their practice validated 'scientifically'. I also take a look at how scientists behave, how healers themselves behave and how the other interested party (the 'church') behaves in these exchanges.

I show how research has been done to both explain and validate 'hands-on' healing but this research is rarely replicated. Replication is important for science as new ideas only get accepted when many studies start to confirm the same thing. Many of these studies would be relatively easy to replicate but few scientists seem curious, willing, or able to step up to the plate. (Some definitely feel the wrath of their profession when they do actually get involved in such studies).

So when a scientist tells us "there is no evidence….." then they are wrong (and in this course I present some of the evidence that is available). 

There is evidence, the problem is there not enough of it and no large scale trials have been done to my knowledge. As there is no profit in techniques that are not patentable, and large scale trials are expensive, I believe it is the role of Government in these situations to fund the necessary research. Although there is not profit to be made, there are certainly healthcare savings to made, so if the research is successful Government purse strings would be enhanced (although the pharmaceutical backhanders would certainly disappear).