Regarding the subject of "Reiki", DragonSlayer apparently posted some
information, of which I only received part, no doubt because our server at the
BBS here only keeps a certain number of posts before discarding, so I must
apologize, both to the newsgroup and to DragonSlayer, if anything I say
mischaracterizes DragonSlayer’s original post.  I was only able to retrieve part
of it, and it is the part I was able to retrieve, and *only* this part, to which
I shall make some reply.  Concerning Reiki, DragonSlayer says:

DS>  I would suggest that you look at the work done in Colorado demonstrating
DS>  that Non-Contact Therapeutic Touch is a placebo. This research clearly
DS>  implies that it is highly likely that Reiki is a placebo as well, for both
DS>  methods are quite similar indeed.

While I shall not attempt to characterize the scholarship that came to the
conclusion that Non-Contact Therapeutic Touch is no more effective than placebo,
I should, first of all, like to point out that, as I understand the Colorado
research, (it was discussed briefly in an editorial accompanying the Fall 1994
issue of the ISSSSEM (the International Society for the Scientific Study of
Subtle Energy Modalities (?) ) this Colorado study made no mention of any other
non-touch modalities other than Non-contact Therapeutic Touch and specifically
stated that conclusions based on this study should *not* be extended to any
other modalities since *only* Non-contact Therapeutic Touch was studied.

Further, there are at least three significant differences between Usui Shiki
Ryoho, or the Usui Method of Natural Healing (known as "Reiki" in the United
States) and Non-Contact Therapeutic Touch.  [Now, it may turn out that these
differences do *not* result in the modality known as Reiki being more effective
than a placebo, but the differences *are* real and, IMHO, ought to be *proved*
to be relevant or irrelevant *before* anyone (including, with all due respect,
DragonSlayer) concludes that Reiki is no more effective than a placebo simply
because Non-Contact Therapeutic Touch may have proven to be thus.]

Firstly, the most significant difference between the two modalities is that, in
the Usui Method of Natural Healing, practitioners must undergo a process known
as "attunement" whereby they become attuned to the "ki" energy that is all
around us.  Now, whether one accepts this process called "attunement" as a
useful event or as a non-effectual event whose efficacy cannot be scientifically
measured, (and hence, irrelevant from a scientific viewpoint), it is still an
actual occurrence, and its impact upon the efficacy of a statistically
significant number of Reiki practitioners ought to be examined.  To date, this
has not occurred.

Secondly and thirdly, in the Usui Method of Natural Healing, there are symbols
that are drawn in the air by the practitioner with his/her hand(s) (these
symbols are called "mudras") and there are names of the symbols that are audibly
intoned (the audible names of the symbols are called "mantras" and their
intonation is called "invocation") that are used by advanced level practitioners
for the specific purposes of gathering, focusing, and channeling "ki" energy in
significant amounts to deal with different aspects of one’s disease, illness, or
trauma, so that the recipient can use the "ki" energy to heal him/herself of the
specific problem at hand.

The efficacy of the use of these "mantras" and "mudras" in conjunction with
Reiki practice has not been studied scientifically, but their presence and use
in the practice is real and should not be automatically dismissed as irrelevant.
They may have an impact on the efficacy of the practice.

Now, the explanation for all of this only becomes interesting if there is a
significant difference between placebo result and Reiki result.  To the best of
my knowledge, this has not been tested with a statistically significant group.
(Add to this, no self-respecting Reiki Master would ever claim to "heal" anyone.
Instead, most Reiki Masters insist that the recipient of "ki" energy heals
him/herself by using the "ki" energy that the Reiki Master channels to the
client.)

"But is anything really happening?" enquiring minds want to know.
Notwithstanding the modesty of these Reiki Masters, this question remains to be
answered in a double-blind, scientifically engineered study, to determine
whether there is an unexplained variation between placebo results and Reiki
results (either better *or* worse.  Either would prove *something* is
happening.)

In this respect, I would say the following:  it is unscientific to dismiss the
possibility of an event occurring, simply because one has not yet figured out a
way to measure the event itself (a la Heisenberg), or to locate the source of
the event (also Heisenberg).  To wit, radioactivity existed long before our
ability to measure it quantitatively, and long before we figured how to use it
productively; perhaps the same can be said for the existence and movement of
"ki" energy.  The fact is, over 100,000 pages of Buddhist sutras, predominantly
the Lotus Sutra, point out the existence of the "mystic law of cause and effect
through sound or vibration", and did so long before the invention of the
electron microscope enabled us to confirm the vibrational nature of the atomic
structure.  The absence of this electron microscope in no way negated the
Buddhist writers’ certain knowledge of this vibrational energy contained in all
sentient and insentient beings, *in spite of* their being unable to "prove" it
scientifically.  According to these Sutras, they *used* this "ki" energy to
perform what we would today call "miracles."  Did they?  To what *can* we
attribute their seemingly farsighted knowledge?  The debate continues.

I am not asking anyone to "believe" that "ki" energy exists or that its presence
makes a difference in a person’s recovery from illness, disease, or trauma,
although this is what *I* personally have experienced (anecdotally, of course).
However, I would respectfully commend to the attention of the non-Reiki
practitioner community that there are enough differences between Reiki and other
non-touch based modalities (such as the Barbara Brennan School of Healing,
Non-contact Therapeutic Touch, Huna, Pranic Healing, Mahikari No Wara, etc.)
that "lumping together" Reiki with other non-touch modalities would
"short-change" the world of the opportunity to verify the true efficacy of this
authentically unique energy modality, in effect, "condemning" Reiki to the
placebo "scrap heap" without a fair, scientific trial.  This, I believe, is
inappropriate, shortsighted, and undeserved.

While I shall not insist that anyone ought to believe (without scientific proof)
in the efficacy of Usui Shiki Ryoho (or "Reiki" as it’s known in the U.S. and
some other countries), notwithstanding my anecdotal experiences or those of
approximately 60,000 practitioners throughout the world, I personally would like
to "weigh in" and say that, at the least, the differences between Reiki and
other forms of non-touch energy work are significant enough to warrant a
separate study before "throwing out the Reiki with the bath water."

Thanks for listening.

Brian M. Carter, B.S., C.M.T.
Usui Shiki Ryoho Reiki Master
California State-authorized Instructor (Cert #105502, expires 01/97)
   in Massage and Massage Therapy Subjects
L.A. County License 0594-116598I1
City of Pasadena License 52-058755
—

…
|> (in the sense of Rolfing Structural Integration core length)
|> In fact a proof crazed German Rolfer actually photographed a small group
|> of clients with the aim of seeing if discrimination could be used to
|> figure out whether a person had been Rolfed, Reiki-ed, massaged, or had
|> hair messed up and walked around the table.  In fact there was not enough
|> discrimination between the body types used in the very small sample of
|> people except for one thing:  both the Reiki-ed and the Rolfed people
|> exhibited "core" length.
|> Subsequently I tried out Reiki twice for myself.  It was a very enjoyable
|> experience each time and did produce a short term feeling of core length
|> and well-being that lasted into the next day.
|

Some of us are unfamiliar with the technical terms from rolfing, would you care
to give us a definition of "Rolfing Structural Integration core length"?

Regards,

Scott W.