Talk:Reiki/Archive 8

[sic] in the intro's quotation of 2008 study
This quotation was concluded with a [sic], which as far as I can tell referred to no actual error (possible vandalism?). Perhaps it was intended to refer to the lack of capitalization on Reiki, in which case it should be placed after the offending word instead of at the end of the quotation. (Though, if that is truly an issue, I think [R]eiki would be a more appropriate correction, although I do not know if that is in line with Wikipedia policy. If someone else thinks that is an actual error which needs to be addressed they can do so with explanation here.) Walkersam (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - I added it to show the lack of capitalisation and the fact that it has come straight from the source word for word. I propose putting it back in to show this. If there's not objection, I'll do it by Sunday. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, if you're going to make note of this error, the proper way is to put the [sic] after the offending word, not at the end of the quote. I have no argument personally with reinstating it in that fashion, although your discussion above of energy vs. practice usages suggests to me that it is possibly dubious to consider this an error. I'll leave that to others if they want to dispute it. Walkersam (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Provision by national health services
The National Health Service of the United Kingdom (NHS) offers complementary therapies such as Reiki throughout a number surgeries, such as Velindre Cancer Centre (Welsh: Canolfan Ganser Felindre) in Wales, and also offers information regarding Reiki, as does the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) in the USA.

I think that this section needs to be added back in. Shoemaker's Holiday's reason for removing it was that the government does not offer free Reiki, the citation is offering to let you pay for it. NHS treatments are free. No where in the above text does it say (or imply) that the UK NHS offers free Reiki, but merely points the fact that it is available to patients. Thoughts? Xxglennxx (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The NHS provides all medical treatments at hospitals and doctor's offices for free. That one hospice is allowing what may well be a one-off treatment option, not regularly, and which you have to pay for, says nothing about provision by the NHS - indeed,t hat you have to pay for it indicates it's not part of NHS policy to offer the treatment, since, as I said, all treatment by the NHS is free. The section is at the very least highly misleading, and, since it can't show even that is at all common, not actually notable. Show some NHS policy that encourages the provision of Reiki by hospitals, and then we can talk. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just bumping the thread. I think that we should include a section to say that complementary therapies are being offered by health services such as Velindre Cancer Centre (reflexology, reiki/healing, aromatherapy, breathing and relaxation techniques), with reference to this page. In reference to this page, other complementary therapies are being offered (Indian head massage, body massage), which I think you have to pay for, including Reiki, but this to me seems to be from someone not working for the Complementary Therapy Department (see first link). Opinions? (Forgot to sign!) --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for Good Article
I'd like to nominate this article as Good one. Before I do this, does anyone have any objections or want to suggest any improvements? --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominated today by myself. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

2009 summary
After reading the A systematic review of the therapeutic effects of Reiki (2009), I think (some of) the following can be added to the article:


 * "A systematic review was conducted 2009 with the intention of trying to evaluate whether Reiki produces a significant treatment effect. The review was collaborated from studies that were identified using an electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The quality of reporting was evaluated using a modified CONSORT Criteria for Herbal Interventions, while methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad Quality score. with ad articles being selected based on the following features: placebo or other adequate control, clinical investigation on humans, intervention using a Reiki practitioner, and published in English. Data was independently extracted on study design, inclusion criteria, type of control, sample size, result, and nature of outcome measures. The modified CONSORT Criteria indicated that all 12 trials meeting the inclusion criteria were lacking in at least one of the three key areas of randomisation, blinding, and accountability of all patients, indicating a low quality of reporting. Nine of the 12 trials detected a significant therapeutic effect of the Reiki intervention; however, using the Jadad Quality score, 11 of the 12 studies ranked "poor." It was concluded that the serious methodological and reporting limitations of limited existing Reiki studies preclude a definitive conclusion on its effectiveness, and that high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to address the effectiveness of Reiki over placebo."

I think the only thing we can do is present the whole review in its entirety, then there can be no room for possible misinterpretation by readers. The previous problems have come up, I believe, do to us not including the full review itself, which I think we'll have to from now on (although I'm sure Ronz will tell me differently ;P). Xxglennxx (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone have access to the full paper? There's the additional problem, pointed out by another editor, that this review is inferior to the 2008 review.  I agree from reading the abstract, and so have not followed up on my comments to include it. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Though it's inferior, I think it would be worth while to include the 2008 and 2009 reviews, as it points out the conflicting use of Reiki though scientific means, and proves (as both reviews have said) that more scientific research is needed into Reiki. If there are no objections, I think we should add the above in soon (in full or in parts, what do you lot think?). Xxglennxx (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what are we going to do about the 2009 findings in the article? As I've proposed, the only thing we can do to avoid people misreading and misunderstanding the findings is to include the whole summary, which is what I wrote in, but Ronz reverted it, stating, "misrepresentation of sources." How is this? Currently, the 2009 article version merely states, "A 2009 review found that "the serious methodological and reporting limitations of limited existing Reiki studies preclude a definitive conclusion on its effectiveness." Again, this could be the conclusion of the findings, but it's not everything found in the review, and think it rude not to include the fact that there were demonstrations of benefits of Reiki. As previously stated by other contributors, just presenting this line is very misinterpreting to a reader, as if they follow the link, then they'll see that benefits were seen. Can we just include the full of it, and if not, why? --  Xxglennxx  ★ talk ★ 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See my comments from 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC), above, on what I think could be added to the lede that includes the 2009 review conclusions.
 * Neither review concludes that there were benefits from Reiki. --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are more current Clinical Trials as published by NCAM here where the beneficial effects of reiki have been found. I think the article should reflect these findings rather than a outdated conglomerate of trial findings. Or at least recognize the current trials to have shown benefit from reiki. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=reiki%5BTitle%5D%20AND%20%28%22humans%22%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20AND%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial%5Bptyp%5D%20AND%20English%5Blang%5D%20AND%20%222005/12/22%22%5BPDat%5D%20%3A%20%222010/12/20%22%5BPDat%5D%29&cmd=DetailsSearch. CooperBass (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At a glance, they all look like individual studies, right? Anything here a review? --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Must the article mention only reviews? Can more current information as in the trial findings also be included? If so then the article may seem more balanced and less biased toward an outdated and perhaps biased review. CooperBass (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NCAM reviewed the individual trials before publishing them to their website.CooperBass (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:MEDRS, and take some time to skim through the discussions here to see how we've addressed similar problems.
 * We rely on reviews to avoid bias. Individual studies should be treated as primary sources. They can be used to provide important details not covered by the better sources already in use. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead
Noticing the debate on whether Reiki is quackery I feel the need to observe that editors are using an article published in a journal that is not considered a high-quality medical journal. As such, one has to wonder why actual main stream journals like NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Lancet, et cetera, are not used. Usually, when a certain practise has an a priori chance of being inprobable science will lack incentive to investigate, hence the lack of RCT's. Case in point, you will not find a study, in serious medical literature, on the efficacy of lemon juice as therapy in carcinoma. We should not interpret that as basis for stating in the respective WP articles that lemon juice has not been disproven to work. In general, the hallmark of quackery, unless widely advocated (i.e. homeopathy), is the lack of rigoruos scientific rebuttal. --Nomen Nescio (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, but this still doesn't sort the current problems we have with all of the trials conducted. Some of us have argued to include the full summary - all of it - but has fallen on death ears. Can you propose anything? --  Xxglennxx  ★ talk contributions ★ 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you point out any RCT, i.e. adhering to the scientific method and published in something better than an obscure journal, that addresses Reiki? To my knowledge no reputable article exist. As such I would suggest pointing out the non-scientific nature of this "medical intervention." -- Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  12:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomen, actually there is quite a wealth of scientific evidence which can be used to explain the nature of this "medical intervention". The primary candidate is the natural electromagnetic fields which all biological organisms emit. There is a ton of literature detailing effect of electromagnetic fields on biological systems, including those published by JAMA, a preliminary trial published by Lancet and the follow up article with results published here. There are tons of other articles published by reputable journals on this effect which have been published over the years. It is known that the frequencies of the electromagnetic fields produced by the human body are in the range known to produce these effects and influence biological systems. The main question is whether practitioners have the capacity to produce these fields at will at sufficient strength and in the correct frequency range. It may be that these fields are produced randomly, or are at least not controllable, which may explain why some studies find positive effects of reiki and other biofield therapies and others do not. The fact that these therapies are associated with "new age" thought is irrelevant since at very least there is a growing evidence base suggesting that there are some positive effects to these treatments...including this one. As for why mainstream journals don't publish these articles, well that should be self-evident. Obviously, this type of research is still considered on the fringe even if it did report positive findings, and I'm sure the editors of these major journals want to protect the integrity and image of their journal by not publishing fringe science. I think this could change if more is done to investigate the possible causal mechanism behind biotherapies such as electromagnetic field emission, which as I have stated, is already a proven healing mechanism. I think major journals would be willing to publish articles on biotherapy once the "mystical" component has been taken out of the equation. Asymnation (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph may be grammatically incorrect. "According to Reiki practitioners and Masters, at First Degree, a Reiki practitioner is able to heal himself and others, at Second Degree is able to heal others distantly (commonly called distant healing) with the use of specialised symbols, and at Master level (specifically Master/Teacher level) is able to teach and attune others to Reiki." It may make more sense if it were changed to this. According to Reiki practitioners and Masters, at First Degree, a Reiki practitioner is able to heal himself and others, at Second Degree the practitioner is able to heal others distantly (commonly called distant healing) with the use of specialised symbols, and at Master level (specifically Master/Teacher level) the practitioner is able to teach and attune others to Reiki. CooperBass (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Immediate Effects of Reiki on Heart Rate Variability, Cortisol Levels, and Body Temperature in Health Care Professionals With Burnout.
A user has just put this link on my talk page. I read it and it's interesting, and wondering if we can build it into the article itself. I'm asking here instead of just writing it in because, as other contributors already know(!), my history in the scientific field of Reiki is hit and miss! --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 21:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Danger's of Reiki
Is it possible to use this article as reference to show that reiki is not as pure as it sounds? http://www.lifexpert.com/special/reiki.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.35.71 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The link you gave is to a self-published source. You would need a reliable source, i.e., for a claim like this, a peer-reviewed journal. Sunray (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from what Sunray has said, the website it rubbish and full of misinformation; healing with Reiki (universal energy) isn't spiritual healing - there's no faith needed nor does it claim to heal the spirit. And this is only from the "What is reiki healing" section. Bad information, bad English, bad website! --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 19:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes
I've reverted to a later, stable version. Here are my reasons:
 * 1) A user deleted a referenced piece of current research.
 * 2) It's "Derivation of name" and not "Etymology" as 'Reiki' is the English word, not the Japanese. This section includes how the word 'Reiki' came to be from its Japanese 霊気. A lot of OED refs were also deleted.
 * 3) The "Early development" is not unbalanced as sources have been provided where needed.
 * 4) Japanese kanji have been included to give the article depth; one kanji can have many different English words, and the reader can delve deeper into this if wanted.
 * 5) The info deleted from "Five Principles" is necessary as it provides information on the Japanese, English, and romaji versions of the precepts, including where they originally came from.
 * 6) The "Teachings" and "Healing" is not unbalanced as sources have been provided where needed.
 * 7) Wikipedia uses precise refs; combining them all would be saying each piece of referenced material can be found on ALL of those combined pages; they cannot. Therefore, individual refs are needed for each piece of info. If info was taken and used multiple times from the same page, then combining of refs is OK.
 * 8) Info was deleted from "Breathing" which outlines its importance.

Major changes like this need to be discussed BEFORE happening. This has been said here many times. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 19:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverting changes by multiple good faith editors like this smacks of WP:OWN. I removed (again) material from what appears to be an fringe alt med journal. Yobol (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal - I've read all of it and agree. What I don't agree with, is the good faith edits, which weren't good faith edits, but detremental edits to the article's good quality when copious amounts of good, sourced information is deleted and "neutrality" tags placed in sections. As we know, Wikipedia works on verifibility, not personal feelings or thoughts. All the current info has a reliable source and is verifiable. I've explained why most of the recent edits have been detremental to the article in this section and above. I'm not calling this article my own - many have contributed to it to get it where it is at the moment, as can be seen from this page and the history page - I am merely keeping this article up to good Wikipedia standards. If this means reverting numerous edits by contributors who use excuses such as "this is the English Wikipedia" or "the bib. is biased", then this I will have to do. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 21:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Holistic Nursing Practice
I removed an article cited to Holistic Nursing Practice and this was reverted. Per WP:MEDRS, we should use independent sources, specifically in this case, avoid journals that focus on/promote alternative medicine (which this journal clearly is, "holistic" in the title being a dead giveaway, though previous issues discuss prayer and "biofield" energy amongst other alt med issues). These journals almost universally publish much more sympathetic to CAM modalities than higher quality journals. I should also note that WP:REDFLAG applies here; it is extraordinary to suggest Reiki works without solid evidence, and especially put it in the lead. Peer review is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion in evaluating sources.

As an aside, I reverted the addition of the study which was added earlier 10/8/2011; per WP:BRD, it is the people wishing to add the study which should take it to the talk page, but I will not edit war over the issue. Yobol (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Having just come to this article, I doubt that I qualify as one of the "people wishing to add the study." However, I was surprised to see mention in the lead of "A 2008 systematic review of randomised clinical trials [which] concluded that 'the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment...'" (Lee, et. al. 2008). I don't think that this belongs in the lead because it doesn't tell us anything about Reiki and seems to cast doubt on it as a treatment. Coverage of the study in the "Research, critical evaluation..." section seems fine. But I think that the Holistic Nursing Practice study is also o.k. as a counter to the inconclusive study by Lee et. al. (BTW, the authors of the study admit the inconclusiveness of their study, when they say: "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."
 * As a second point, the single sentence paragraph of the "Research..." section does not seem to be consistent with the citation. Can you reproduce the quote that talks about "qi or 'life force' energy"? Sunray (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the lead is to provide an overview of the whole article, mainly its important points. I liken it to a blurb personally. Seeing as this is, at current, is the most recent trial (albeit randomised clinical), it was deemed important enough to put in the lead. I've fought for the inclusion of what you've put ("Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting") in the lead, but it was deemed to long(winded) and was left out. I'd be up for putting it in. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 18:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the way the study is described in the lead, it is written from a NPOV, so I agree with leaving it there. The note about the methodological flaws should be added to the "Research..." section, though, as should reference to the Holistic Nursing Practice article. We are in the early days of evaluation of CAM and some cancer centres (for example) have accepted Reiki along with therapeutic touch, as complementary therapies because some research does indeed show that it seems to work. Sunray (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Seems to work" is a matter of opinion since giving placebos such as reiki to cancer patients does more harm than good. Holistic Nursing Practice shouldn't be used as it doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. --McSly (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that link you gave is an interesting opinion piece, essentially proving that whether it is in the Guardian or not, a blog is still a blog. I was struck by this comment by the journalist: "The researchers were quite clear about their interpretation of the results. They believe reiki has been shown to work." But, of course, the journalist knows better.
 * The multifactorial (biopsychosocial) model of illness has been well accepted in medicine since the 1960s as this article from the International Journal of Clinical Practice makes clear. They do not yet know why Reiki works, or what the psycho-social (psychosomatic) components are. Sunray (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting back to the point, the source Holistic Nursing Practice does not meet MEDRS and should not be used as a source. If it is accepted as working, we surely should have much stronger sources that say so. Yobol (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Redundant?
this is a bit redundant, isn't it? if we say there's no clinical or scientific evidence as a bald statement, why do we need to say that this group or that group also says that there is no evidence? there refs are still there (and now they are there twice), so it's not like we're gaining anything with the redundancy.

"The sky is blue. Plus, NASA and the Weather Channel claim that the sky is blue.  and the theory that the sky is blue has been suggested by several other less credible sources."  Is that kind of thing really necessary? -- Ludwigs 2 00:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ludwigs2 here; if we use the statement there is no scientific evidence, we don't need to attribute that same position again in the next sentence to two other bodies which should fall under the first sentence already... It's probably better left in the text of the article, if we use the one sentence summary.   Yobol (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Ludwigs2 on this. The statement is redundant. Sunray (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info
These edits removed the text, "'The proposed mechanism for Reiki energy is purely hypothetical as the existence of the ki or 'life force' energy used in this method has not been proven scientifically.'" initially for the reason that it "wasn't needed" by the first edit summary, then saying "it is not what the references say" in the second summary. As I have already noted above, the references say from Lee, et al.:"'The mechanisms that may be involved in reiki are hypothetical. The existence of Ki (or Qi, life energy) has not been proven scientifically.'" and from OCCAM: "'The existence of such fields has not yet been scientifically proven.'" I will need a very good answer to why Sunray is removing sourced info from this article, as clearly "it is what the references say." Yobol (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been extensive discussion of this on this page. In the discussion Yobol pointed out that there are two main definitions of the word "hypothetical." The way it is used in the paper (since the paper is a review of the science) is obviously the first use: "of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis." In the discussion, above, Yobol pointed out that he used the term "purely hypothetical" because he meant the second use of hypothetical: "supposed but not necessarily real or true." That is clearly not what the sources are saying. Please refer to the section above, "Summary of scientific consensus in lead" for further discussion of the scientific consensus. As editors, if we have difficulty agreeing, it is advisable to stay very close to the wording of the sources.
 * Also, I don't see the need for this sentence in the "Research" Section of the article any longer. The next paragraph summarizes this source (Lee et.al.) in more detail. Given that there is now a statement summarizing Lee in the lead, the article adequately covers this topic. Sunray (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that it is speculative in science precisely because there is no evidence that it exists. You are reading into the meaning of the word that is clearly not there.  I am returning the well sourced text.  This article adequately covers the topic only when all significant aspects are covered, including the fact that the mechanism of Reiki has no basis in modern science. Yobol (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not start edit warring. I am saying that we have to stick to what the sources actually say. Any deviation is OR. We need the a consensus of editors before adding that statement. I have expressed my concerns as clearly as I know how and would like to hear others views. Would other editors be willing to comment? Sunray (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sticking to what the sources say. They say Reiki's mechanisms are hypothetical. You are simply choosing to use the wrong definition. If there is no evidence of the mechanism's existence, it is by definition speculative. Yobol (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The quotation from the source says: "The mechanisms that may be involved in reiki are hypothetical. The existence of Ki (or Qi, life energy) has not been proven scientifically." We can say that, but no more. The addition of the word "purely" is no more than one editor's POV. Sunray (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From where I stand, the source is saying it's purely hypothetical. You are choosing to ignore the obvious definition of the word "hypothetical," for whatever reason.  Yobol (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we do not agree, it will be necessary to quote the exact wording of authors and they do not use the word "purely." Sunray (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already taken out the word "purely." Yobol (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected
This article has been fully protected due to a long-running edit war. See the AN3 report. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Ask for unprotection if consensus is reached. In the mean time, use editprotected to ask for individual changes that appear to have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Claims for Reiki energy have no known theoretical or biophysical basis"
The sentence "Claims for Reiki energy have no known theoretical or biophysical basis" has been tagged with neutrality. In which way the tagger meant it, I'm not sure, though I've never been happy with this sentence, though it was decided to keep it in during its revamp by the majority of other contributors. I've read both references, and not one of them says, in plain English, what the above sentence is saying. I see no need to keep the sentence in, so I suggest we remove it. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 18:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The main reason I tagged it was the one identified by Xxglennxx: It is a statement not contained in the studies it cites (thus OR. I would add that because of its absolutist stance, the statement is, in essence, unscientific. Sunray (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll wait until Sunday for others to have their say. If there's no objection, we'll remove it by then. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 16:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It has two sources. What's the problem? --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement does not say what the sources say. Sunray (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable summary of medical and scientific consensus. We just need a better source to make it clearer then? --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very doubtful, it is OR because it does not summarize the research findings. Sunray (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see what WP:FTN has to say. --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FTN says: "If your question is whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard.
 * My concern, as I wrote, is to have proper presentation of scientific and medical consensus. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, as determined by the editors of this article. But this thread is about whether that statement is supported by those sources. Sunray (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your point? --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly the sources do not support the statement. Thus the statement is OR. Or put another way, it is unverified. Sunray (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the first reference. Given that we must present the relevant scientific and medical consensus, I've decided to focus on that instead. I hope all editors here will do the same, or at least not obstruct those who do. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This was referred to WP:FTN. Ronz put his question. Two people replied (one being me) that the statement did not represent a scientific consensus. There has been no further discussion, so I have now removed the statement from the article. Sunray (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored a previous version supported by the Lee systematic review (see the 2nd full paragraph on the last page of the article). I do not see why this is being removed when it is sourced. Yobol (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And this seems a helpful and relevant reference: --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since that sentence is not consistent with the conclusion of the study, would you be able to quote the exact statement that you are paraphrasing, please? Sunray (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't you read the study? Yobol (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No I have only seen the abstract and conclusion of the study as I do not have online access right now. So rather than having me go to the library, would you please quote that statement for verification purposes? Sunray (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The mechanisms that may be involved in reiki are hypothetical. The existence of Ki (or Qi, life energy) has not been proven scientifically." I guess I assumed that a person removing material as "unsourced" would have actually, you know, read the source to see if it was in there. My mistake. Yobol (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing that. What I said in the edit summary was that the statement in the article was not supported by the reference. I said that because the studies' Discussion and Conclusion sections both said otherwise. Now that you have produced the actual quote, it is evident that I was correct. The study is very clear that "the evidence is insufficient." The researchers state, in the "Discussion" section of their report: "Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting." To conclude that "claims for Reiki have no known theoretical or biophysical basis" is a thus a synthesis, i.e., original research. Sunray (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that you have better knowledge of what is actually in the source, please take it to WP:ORN. --Ronz (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was addressed to Yobol. You have shown that you are unwilling, or unable, to respond to the concern I am raising. Policy on consensus states: "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." I have raised a legitimate concern. I trust that Yobal and other editors will abide by the policy whether or not you do. Sunray (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand the point of continuing this discussion. I changed the text to more closely follow what is actually in the source, and added another source that also supports it.  The underlying theory of qi is not substantiated by science, which is now sourced to two reliable sources.  The matter seems closed. Yobol (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts to fix that statement, Yobol. As you well know, hypothetical means "based on, or serving as a hypothesis," and is the second step in the scientific method. The way the statement is worded now removes my concern. I will tweak it by removing the word "purely" (we have no idea what current research will reveal). Thanks. Sunray (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to the removal of the word "purely". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not base what we write now on what we think might be in the future.  Should future research show any indication that the underlying theory of Reiki has any plausibility, we can revisit the issue. Yobol (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't very clear. Purely means "completely, absolutely, wholly..." etc. There are no absolutes in science. A hypothesis is, necessarily, and by definition, testable. Sunray (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am using the alternate definition of "hypothetical" in this case - as in "not supported by evidence" or "conjectural", in which case "purely" does apply. The theory of "qi" or life force energy does not have any real or plausible analog in modern evidence based medicine.  I think that should be reflected in the article. Yobol (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas. Then I continue to have a problem with the statement. The NIC source states: "The existence of such fields has not yet been scientifically proven." Since you seem to intend a different meaning, my concern is that the reader will do the same and therefore conclude that Reiki doesn't work. That is unproven. Would you be willing to give this some more thought? Sunray (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that the concept of ki has some real plausible analog in medicine? If not, what are we talking about? The concept of ki goes against what we know about living organisms in science.  We do our readers a disservice if we do not make this fact clear. Yobol (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to understand ki. We know that the body is subject to, and responds to, various kinds of energy. The laws of thermodynamics state that energy persists. There is no doubt that there is thermal energy involved in Reiki. Heat is used in physical medicine... Sunray (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The use of hands to affect the "life energy" is not anywhere close to anything that is accepted by biology. That it might work by some as-of-yet unknown means is not only speculation on your part, but it also doesn't make its current theories any more plausible. We have to reflect reality here, and reality is that the underlying theory of ki is pure speculation unsupported by science. Yobol (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The concept of ki (chi) has a long history in Eastern medicine. Obviously it has no referent in western medicine, but it's not exactly refutable.  Let's not get tangled in the mire of trying to assert or refute it's ontological existence, and just treat it as a central concept Reiki which has no evidentiary basis in western science and no practical use in modern medicine.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which is why I was trying to show the speculative nature of it in the science section. Yobol (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Ludwigs 2 00:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2 recently added the following statement to the article: "There is no clinical or scientific evidence that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition." This seems to be the most accurate summary, yet produced, of the source (Lee, et. al.). However, I am not sure that it belongs in the lead. Sunray (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to have some real-world contextualization. I'm not all that fond of this particular form of contextualization, mind you, but it is important not to present Rieki as though it is a common and accepted medical practice (because - honestly - it isn't).  This is a matter of neutrality.  My general rubric on these matters is to try to represent the topic faithfully both in its own right and from the perspective of the greater world, so reality-checks of this sort are useful tools.  Remember, we are writing for someone who may know nothing about Reiki, and so we do need to cue them in to the fact that Reiki is a small, esoteric, non-standard, off-the-beaten-path kind of thing.  The phrasing effectively identifies Reiki as non-mainstream; if you can think of a better way of doing it, we're all ears, but it does need to be done.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Perhaps it can be tweaked slightly. I am concerned with the best way to present the scientific consensus. I will have a look at that. You said "we're all ears." How many ears are you listening with? :) Sunray (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Only the one that matters, grasshopper.   -- Ludwigs 2  04:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary of scientific consensus in lead
I notice that the sources we have used all add a qualification in their attempts to summarize the scientific consensus. For example: "'... the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.' (Lee, et. al.)"

"'Available scientific evidence at this time does not support claims that Reiki can help treat cancer or any other illness. More study may help determine to what extent, if at all, it can improve a patient's sense of well-being.' (ACS)"

"'...The existence of [energy] fields has not yet been scientifically proven.' (OCCAM)"

I think that our statement in the lead should reflect this. The simplest way would be to use direct quotes:
 * A comprehensive review of the research (Lee, et. al. 2008) concluded: “evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition.”4 The American Cancer Society has reached a similar conclusion, stating: "Available scientific evidence at this time does not support claims that Reiki can help treat cancer or any other illness. More study may help determine to what extent, if at all, it can improve a patient's sense of well-being.”5

Comments? Sunray (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, well since there have been no concerns raised, I will add this to the lead. Sunray (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored a previous version; your version leaves out the position of NCCAM and the long quote seemed too long for the lead (I moved it lower in article). I actually quite liked Ludwigs2's version, but I think this version is better as it has more information without the bloated quote. Yobol (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I put this proposal up following discussion in the previous section. No one commented further for over a week, so I made the change. Given the extensive discussion that has occurred, I don't understand why you have reverted to an earlier version. As to the restoration of the term "purely hypothetical" in the lead, we have also had extensive discussion about that here. No source uses the words "purely hypothetical" I have proposed that if we cannot get agreement on wording here, it is best to stay very close to the actual wording of the sources. Would you please continue discussion here until there is consensus on different wording? Sunray (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to the NCCAM quote: We cannot use it. It no longer appears on the NCCAM site and was only available via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. It seems to me to be very important to stick to the latest findings in an evolving field (CAM). Sunray (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that I used purely, I have restored the previous version without "purely". Per WP:LINKROT, we do not remove information just because it goes to a dead link. There is no reason to think that NCCAM has changed its mind (there is no contradictory information on the NCCAM website to say so), so we should not delete that information just because it is a dead link now. Yobol (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We need to avoid WP:OR to rationalize changes, "It seems to me to be very important to stick to the latest findings in an evolving field." --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment about OR is unclear to me. I am talking about the use of reliable sources. My main point was that we must stick to what the sources actually say, especially when there is disagreement between editors. Sunray (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yobol: WP:LINKROT is not policy. The problem is not merely that the link has gone dead, it is that the site is still there. They have chosen to omit that statement from their site. We cannot link to a former version of a site unless it is for historical purposes. If you have any doubts about this I would suggest you refer a question to WP:RSN. Sunray (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADREF links to the appropriate guideline, "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working today." The consensus here seems to be that it is appropriate, per Ronz agreement above, with your lone dissenting opinion. I will therefore revert to the guideline compliant version, and you could take it to RSN if you continue to object. You don't know the reason why that particular page isn't there (there is no page about energy medicine at all, meaning it could have been lost for any number of technical reasons besides them choosing to omit that page as you are assuming here (without any basis).  As the opinion expressed by NCCAM is in line with the scientific consensus, and they do not have any indication that they have changed their mind on their website, I do not believe it is reasonable to remove this link, per our guidelines. Yobol (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding OR: The argument that it is an "evolving field" appear to be special pleading. The marketing of the techniques is certainly evolving, but we're writing an encyclopedia where scientific and medical perspectives are prominent, and marketing needs to be carefully labeled as such, if mentioned at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be your opinion Ronz. Would you be able to stick to policy? Sunray (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC
 * The argument is special pleading, based upon personal opinion. If that's as good as the argument gets, then consensus won't change, nor should it. --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Yobol: You quote WP:DEADREF as stating: "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working today." The URL is working fine. They have replaced that comment with other text. The comment now longer exists on their website. The other sources that I used are current and state the current status of the research. I don't need to refer this to the noticeboard because it is abundantly clear. Sunray (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The ref link was to the "Energy Medicine" page on NCCAM at this URL which does not exist anymore (except, apparently, as a redirect to another page). I'm not sure what you think exists at that URL, but the Energy Medicine page not exist on the NCCAM website anymore and is therefore a dead reference (see this archived link to the actual reference. Yobol (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No one else has commented. I will try to get this to WP:RSN in the next few days so we can get the article unlocked. Sunray (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Japanese article terms
The Japanese article provides slightly different kana and kanji:

レイキ（靈氣、霊氣、霊気などとも表される）

Will this be some small help?

G. Robert Shiplett 14:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The kana is a already mentioned in Reiki. The version of kanji used in the LEAD is 霊気 and this is shinjitai style. 靈氣 has been used in reference to its Chinese origins. 霊氣 has been used in the kanji version of the Precepts. So all of those are already mentioned :) --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent study
I don't think it's worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21531671
 * Why not? It seems to show that the act of paying attention to a patient has positive effects (compared to nothing, reiki and sham (aka active placebo) produced identical positive effects in comforting chemotherapy patients), and further demonstrates another finding that helps to explain why any positive effects seeming to come from this practice, can be explained in rational terms? What is your interest in keeping this shrouded in mystery? Zaphraud (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Playing the WP:CONSPIRACY card again?!! Please stop.
 * "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."
 * Finally, it's a single study. See WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Distant Healing?
Ive heard of Reiki practictioners doing distance healing. Is this really part of traditional reiki? Can someone shed some light on it and if feasible incorporate it into the article.

Henry123ifa (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's mention of distant healing in the article. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 23:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Incoming paid spam
See. MER-C 12:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone have an elance account to determine the url in question? Situations like this usually occur after editors have previously failed to add the url in question. If that's the case here, then it might be appropriate to give the url to XLinkBot, or even blacklist it. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to do that. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 21:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone with an elance account can click the link above, then click within that page to get the full details of the proposed work, which includes the url they want added. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Elance username is kltaylor. This self-revert  looks suspicious. MER-C 12:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Derivation of name" changes
This statement is inaccurate: "Its earliest recorded usage in English dates to 1975.[7]". I suppose it depends on what is acceptable as "earliest recorded usage": If we are looking for usage in magazine/newspaper articles, then see: "Mrs Takata and the Reiki Power" by Patsy Matsuura [The Honolulu Advertiser February 25, 1974]. (There may be even earlier articles) If any published usage of the word is acceptable, see: an advertisement from the Hawaiian ‘Tribune Herald’ [1941] which reads: "Reiki treatments, massage, cabinet baths. Mrs. H. Takata, 2070 Ki-lauea Ave., Waiakea Homesteads.". If a formal declaration signed and witnessed before a Notary Public is acceptable, see: the notarized "Certificate Of Acknowledgement Of An Individual" - commonly referred to as "Mrs. Takata's Reiki Certificate" [February 21st 1938]. Rlei ki (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Xxglenxx, thanks for reverting the mangled OED quotation. I don't think we can accurately say that English reiki is "used to mean "spiritual energy"" because it usually means the therapeutic method. Something like saying English fengshui is used to mean "wind water"? Compare these online dictionary definitions (abridged): Oxford "a healing technique", Macmillan "a medical treatment", Cambridge "a treatment", Encarta "in alternative medicine, a treatment", Dictionary.com "a form of therapy", Wiktionary "A Japanese form of complementary or alternative medicine". I've condensed the lengthy lead sentence, but it's open to your improvements. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I sense a hint of sarcasm there, so right back at ya: No problem! :) There's a difference between "Reiki" and "reiki;" Reiki is the system that encompasses the healing, the techniques, the teachings etc, reiki refers to the energy alone. I've no problem with how it is as it stands. Thank you. I did a partial revert because I believe it important to explain where the word came from, i.e., Japan and the Japanese language. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Komyo Reiki False Information
I am a Komyo Reiki teacher. I learned directly from Hyakuten Inamoto. I spoke with him about this line that I deleted and was just republished. It says that he only achieved Level 1 & 2 from Mrs. Yamaguchi. According to him, she taught him how to give atunements. She did not teach using a level system. There were no levels. Whoever is continuing to post this mis-information needs to supply a reference. Without a reference, it is unverifiable and unpublishible.

Thank you.

Wormis (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the sources, but it sounds like the information is being placed in a misleading context - that there was such training available at the time he was trained. It should be kept out per WP:BLP, unless I'm missing something.  I expect Xxglennxx will be able to help sort this out. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We can keep it out for now. Is there any information published about the Komyo system, as I'm not familiar with it myself. It would also be nice to include the above information that you've provided, Wormis, namely that there aren't any levels within the Komyo system, but without reference, nothing can be added. Xxglennxx (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Komyo Reiki does have levels. It was created by Hyakuten Inamoto after being initiated into Reiki by Chiyoko Yamaguchi. Some of the literature is proprietary only to students of Komyo Reiki, but Hayakuten Sensei as we call him, does have his own website that does a good job of explaining how the system works to outsiders. Please see:

http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~reiki/english/index.html

He is a devout budhist monk who left his family to further his spiritual practice. It is highly unlikely that he would lie about how he learned reiki from Mrs. Yamaguchi. I would really like to know who was writing that about him and where they got their information. Wormis (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. So it seems that he introduced levels into this system if Mrs. Yamaguchi didn't have a levelled-teaching system. Though it may be unlikely that he lied, there is a possibility (though that isn't to be taken as a criticism). Many claim Reiki to be thousands of years old, but we know it isn't - Reiki in its current form is only 88 years old, just like many claim Usui to be a Christian, when we know he was a Buddhist. There is possibly no way of knowing who initially wrote it onto the article (well, there is, but it'd be in the form of tediously going though the history files) - I myself have just cleaned up the article and added the pillars and pictures :) By the way of published material, I meant in the form of a publicly available book. If you'd like to add information about the Komyo system of Reiki (with references), that would be greatly appreciated. Xxglennxx (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of asking Hayakuten Sensei what he would like to see on the page. He is very intelligent, and I expect that he will write it himself, and I will edit the very slight English errors that my or may not be there. Then I will publish it with him as a reference. Wormis (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As a side note: Jikiden which is taught by the son of Mrs. Yamaguchi, also has levels. It is my understanding that traditionally Reiki is taught orally (I would have to check that with Hayakuten Sensei to be sure though). When a teacher decides that he/she wants to try to spread its practice more widely, then levels are created to make it easier to teach and be understood by people. This was not Mrs. Yamaguchi's goal in teaching. Wormis (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. You realise that he will have to write impartially, as Wikipedia has a no "point of view" policy. Many of the current article editors are up on this, and they will rewrite it for NPOV if need be, so don't worry. Reiki might have been taught orally, but from my understanding, it has always had "degrees," as expressed by Usui in his original handbook. Xxglennxx (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But of course. I think he realizes this. As you said, you have editors to make sure that that standard is kept, so we're okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.18.204.247 (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 211.18.204.247 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As a Jikiden Reiki Shihan-Kaku, i´ve had first-hand information from the vice-president of the institution than Mr. Inamoto was not a student of Mrs. Yamaguchi, but that he used to help her translating correspondence. From the Jikiden Reiki institute, they even claim that they have recorded on film Mrs Yamaguchi talking about what she felt as a "treason" from Mr. Inamoto, as he uses her name and lineage, but that she never taught him any kind of teaching degree. In fact, they address this specifically on the Jikiden Reiki website:. I don´t know how this should be handled, as both parties (Komyo Reiki and Jikiden Reiki) have different views on this, and Komyo Reiki uses the Yamaguchi lineage. JuanJoseLM (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible content?
Here is an article published by Jain S & Mills PJ. Reiki, which states that Therapeutic Touch and Healing Touch (that included Reiki) received acknowledgement from the science community that touch therapies do promote healing. This was based on the review of 66 clinical studies measuring the effects of "biofield therapies" all of whom had a range of ailments. Jain and Mills examined the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of these complementary therapies, and showed that overall, published work on biofield therapies is of average quality in scientific terms. There was strong evidence that biofield therapies reduce pain intensity in free-living populations, and moderate evidence that they are effective at lowering pain in hospitalised patients as well as in patients with cancer. This is interesting reading about the Catholic Church and Reiki. Xxglennxx (talk)


 * The Science Daily article is an adapted press release. The research review is here. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The review I mention here is more relevant. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the proper link, Ronz. I'll write a work in for the one mentioned by you above, and will post it here before adding it so others can contribute. Xxglennxx (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems this is a primary source. We need good secondary sources, preferably reviews. The scientific and medical claims in this article are subject to the sourcing requirements established at WP:MEDRS, so keep that in mind when choosing sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there derivative works on Reiki? Is Longevitology one of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sn50 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

reiki in islam
Reiki is against basic islamic beliefs. Reiki level 2 and 3 involve reiki symbols which are not japanese alphabet as believed by many. For example reiki emtional symbol is translated as, "budha in me and god become one". And reiki distance symbol translates as, "budha in me connects with budha in you". that is invoking something beyond God alone. That is why many other religions also consider Reiki as idolatary practice. In fact a form of reiki called, " kundalani Reiki" does involve names of hindu dieties in addition to bhudistism. Prophet PBU of Islam forbade his followers against bhudist practices such as shaving head except for pilgrimage and wearing saffron colored clothes as worn by monks. Reiki initially leads to sickness than benefit. That period is described as 21 days period of detoxification and may be for months for some. The healing follows mathetical laws of probability and chance occurance. simply, it means that if you keep throwing rocks at a target one should hit it. It may be one in 20 or 50 or 100 but probability is never zero. So healing does happen as chance occurance. But these healing claims are greatly exaggerated. Probability will also mean that one should heal if nothing is done. Some recent reiki maters advocate that traditional reiki symbols can be mixed with or changed with any nontraditional symbols such as Islamic Arabic letters. But it would be mixing God and Budha or making them partners in healing. And it should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zia9242 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing that. True, Reiki, as it appears here, come from a Buddhist spiritual practice and not an Islamic practice, though many faiths do practice Reiki under other names (cf: the "Kundalini Reiki" you mention here). Many practitioners of these healing traditions have been monotheists, working with the notion that belief and faith in God can help one to heal (cf: the laying on of hands practiced by many Christians). Many of the Prophets of Islam and other Abrahamic religions practiced this as well. That said, is Reiki—or whatever it's called in the many languages of the world—really against Islamic beliefs? Morganfitzp (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The Islamic equivalent to Reiki is something called Zar. You're welcome. 70.50.151.2 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Shinto, Shugendo, and Tendai
The laying-on-of-hands of balancing ch'i in one's body has prior references within Issai Chozanshi's The Demon's Sermon On The Martial Arts. Dr. Usui was not just a Buddhist, but a Tendai Buddhist, whom believe that enlightenment comes from communing and energy transference between the neophyte and the Kami. Please correct this because it is a fact. 70.50.151.2 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

the Reikiki
The Ritual World of Buddhist "Shinto" The Reikiki and Initiations on Kami-Related Matters in Late Medieval and Early-Modern Japan. Someone with more knowledge of Japanese esotericism should follow this lead on the Reikiki and how this could possibly demystify the origins of reiki. Thank you 70.50.151.2 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns of bias
There exists a strong bias in the topmost portion of the article against this technique, and organizations with deep financial ties to totally unrelated western medical establishments are cited as sources. To balance this viewpoint, I added a brief section indicating that the FDA has approved the technique of warming tissue for pain relief. It should be obvious that, at the least, Reiki provides pain relief via the same mechanism as a heating pad.

This was promptly censored by a revert, which I have undone, but I do not expect to last given how quickly the revert occurred. Personally, I have no interest at all in Reiki, and in fact I feel that my assertion that it should be good for pain relief in the same manner as a heating pad actually adds credibility to claims made by western medical establishments against fraudsters who would charge large amounts of money for such a thing, that the technique is exploited when used to treat serious conditions, as anything that alleviates pain will make a person feel better, and this often can be the basis to provide false hope. Basically, I merely want to point out that any claim that Reiki is totally useless is simply wrong, and likely in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy as well. Zaphraud (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "with deep financial ties to totally unrelated western medical establishments" Best not add information to articles or comments on article talk pages that contain such conspiracy theories. See WP:CONSPIRACY. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are the one with the conspiracy theory, actually. I was merely pointing out that the sources cited for the overly bold claims are inherently not capable of being unbiased, that's all. Nice try, but I refuse to be painted into the same light as the people who actually believe that anything is capable of being a cure-all, especially by close-minded unscientific hard-liners who are unwilling to admit that warmth alleviates pain even in the face of an FDA approval of a device that functions by exactly that mechanism! Zaphraud (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop wasting our time here or you put yourself at risk of being blocked. Paranoia and conspiracy theories are not a substitute for evidence. --Ronz (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To what exactly are you referring? Are you merely resorting to threats and insults at this point, or can you clarify what you mean by "paranoia and conspiracy theories"? Zaphraud (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bottom line, your addition is original research, is not sourced to a reliable source for medical information and introduces a biased viewpoint about a conspiracy about "western medicine" and such. There is nothing to discuss until you first find a MEDRS compliant source that discusses your point.  We do not add what you or I think, but what the reliable sources say, to the article. Yobol (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted this because it seemed unrelated to the actual article, since Reiki practitioners don't claim to be glorified heating pads. In fact, some Reiki practitioners don't touch their patient's body at all. Beyond that, heating pads are not the same thing as hands (very different temperature, shape, etc.). Maybe they provide the same benefits, but Wikipedia requires sources, not speculation.Korin43 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The notion that only non-westerners can provide a non-biased assessment of Reiki is quite simply one of the most pernicious and ridiculous things I have ever read on this site. How are "western medical establishment[s]" inherently biased? It would seem that an above commenter is confusing "bias" with skepticism, as this allows him to summarily dismiss the scientific evidence clearly demonstrating Reiki's lack of medical efficacy and the fact that Reiki's proposed mechanism of action is inherently unscientific. You can't simply dismiss peer-reviewed studies that are inconvenient to your conclusions and then slap on a justification after the fact.74.134.145.218 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)