Biofield

Jeremy McGuire et al. (2026) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN

This three-arm randomized pilot trial with 87 adults explored whether Reiki, a biofield therapy in which a practitioner rests or holds hands lightly near the body to work with the body's energy field, could ease cancer-related fatigue as well as therapeutic massage does. Cancer-related fatigue is a persistent, rest-resistant exhaustion driven by cancer treatment itself — it affects roughly 6 in 10 people on aromatase-inhibitor therapy for breast cancer and about 4 in 10 on long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer, and unlike ordinary tiredness it does not improve with sleep. Because many patients cannot manage the exercise-based therapies oncology guidelines usually recommend, the study looked at two passive, low-effort alternatives instead. Participants — 57 with breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors and 30 with prostate cancer on ADT — were randomly assigned to two Swedish-massage sessions, two Reiki sessions, or four Reiki sessions, each delivered by licensed practitioners in up to 75-minute visits over one to two weeks. Fatigue was tracked with the well-validated 9-item Brief Fatigue Inventory at baseline, weekly through six weeks, and again at a one-month follow-up. All three groups reported real, clinically meaningful drops in fatigue by week six, with benefits still holding a month later. Statistically, the massage and Reiki groups did not differ from each other, but Reiki's improvements were consistently larger and grew with more sessions: on the total fatigue score, the effect size (Cohen's d, where 0.8 is considered large) was 0.57 for massage, 0.87 for two Reiki sessions, and 1.16 for four Reiki sessions — with a similar pattern for the "worst fatigue" and "fatigue interference" measures. Looked at by cancer type, both therapies helped breast-cancer patients across the board, but for prostate-cancer patients only Reiki improved every fatigue measure, while massage helped only the single worst-fatigue item. No one in either therapy arm reported a treatment-related adverse event. These results position Reiki as a safe, well-tolerated option that may match or exceed massage for cancer-related fatigue, particularly for men on ADT, and hint that four sessions work better than two. As a small pilot without a placebo or "sham Reiki" comparison arm, it cannot rule out expectancy or attention effects, and its per-group sizes (26-30 people) are too small to draw firm conclusions — the authors call for larger, sham-controlled trials next.

Kiyoshi Suzuki et al. (2020) · Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)

This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of Okada Purifying Therapy (OPT), a biofield therapy, for symptom relief across diverse ethnicities and cultures. The research is significant as it addresses the unclear scientific understanding of biofield therapies and their potential benefits in improving physical and psychological well-being. The findings indicate that a majority of participants reported symptom improvement, particularly in Spanish/Portuguese speaking countries, while confirming the therapy's safety with low exacerbation rates. The study employed a cross-sectional design, involving 11,303 participants aged 16 and older from 14 countries, with no specific exclusion criteria. Participants received a single session of OPT, which lasted 30 minutes or longer, administered by certified practitioners. Outcomes were measured using self-reported questionnaires, including a demographic questionnaire, a 5-point Likert-type scale for symptom severity, and the MQL-10 questionnaire for quality of life assessment, all conducted before and after the OPT session. Results showed that 77.5% of participants reported overall symptom improvement (p < 0.0083), with the highest improvement rates observed in Chile/Peru (95.0%) and the lowest in Japan (72.3%). Secondary outcomes indicated that 75.6% reported improvement in physical pain, 78.4% in anxiety/depression, and 73.8% in dizziness/palpitation, all statistically significant (p < 0.0083). Non-significant findings included gender differences in symptom improvement (males 66.6% vs. females 78.3%, p = 0.051) and no significant age impact (p = 0.40). Adverse events were minimal, with 228 participants experiencing symptom exacerbation, none requiring emergency treatment. The authors suggest OPT may have a role as a noninvasive approach, particularly in culturally diverse settings. The authors note that cultural background appears to influence outcomes. Key limitations include the use of convenience sampling, potential biases in self-reported data, and the absence of a control group. Future research should aim to validate these findings with more rigorous methodologies and explore the underlying mechanisms of OPT's effectiveness.

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi et al. (2024) · Neuropsychopharmacology reports

This 2023 randomized controlled trial investigated the effects of remote biofield energy therapy on cognitive and motor functions in adults with perceived neuropsychological problems. Biofield energy therapy is a non-pharmacological intervention that utilizes the energy surrounding and permeating the human body to enhance healing and well-being. The study involved 114 participants aged 20 to 55 years, who were randomly assigned to three groups: a control group, a sham control group, and a biofield intervention group. Cognitive and motor functions were assessed using the NIH Toolbox at baseline (day 0), day 90, and day 180. Results indicated that the biofield intervention group experienced significant improvements in language function (p < 0.0001), working memory (p < 0.0001), and episodic memory (p < 0.0001) scores compared to both the control and sham control groups. Additionally, significant enhancements were observed in locomotion, standing balance, dexterity, grip strength, and muscle endurance (p < 0.05 to p < 0.0001). No adverse effects were reported, suggesting that remote biofield energy therapy is a safe and effective non-invasive intervention for improving cognitive and motor functions in adults with neuropsychological impairments. However, this study had limitations, including a small sample size and the need for further research to validate these findings across diverse populations and settings. Larger randomized controlled trials are necessary to establish the efficacy and mechanisms of biofield energy therapy in clinical practice.

Vinu Vijayakumar et al. (2024) · F1000Research

This preliminary study aimed to investigate the duration of biofield experiences and the relationship between learning styles and these sensations. Using a randomized placebo-controlled trial with 88 participants, the study found significant differences in biofield sensations between experimental and sham groups, with specific average times recorded for experiencing various sensations. The findings underscore the effectiveness of Master Choa Kok Sui's hand sensitization technique in eliciting biofield sensations. The study was a randomized controlled trial involving 84 healthy pre-service teachers aged 18-24, who were randomly assigned to either an experimental group practicing Master Choa Kok Sui's hand sensitization or a sham group performing similar but altered activities. The intervention included abdominal breathing, connecting the tongue to the palate, pressing the palms, and positioning palms facing each other while moving them slightly. Outcomes were measured using self-administered questionnaires, including the Learning Styles Questionnaire, Six Letter Cancellation Test, Ruler Drop Test, and Sensation of Hands Timing Questionnaire, assessing learning preferences, attention, reaction time, and experiences of sensations. The total duration of the practice was approximately 6 minutes, with three sessions of 120 seconds each. The primary outcome revealed that 81.81% of the experimental group reported magnetic sensations compared to 15.91% in the sham group (χ² = 38.247, p ≤ .001). Secondary outcomes indicated that 47.72% of the experimental group experienced physical sensations of energy versus 13.6% in the sham group (χ² = 12.02, p ≤ .001), while 93.18% of the sham group reported pain sensations compared to 9.09% in the experimental group (χ² = 62.259, p ≤ .001). Non-significant findings included no differences in BMI (p = .232), learning styles (all p > .5), and performance tests (SLCT p = .070, RT p = .917). Qualitative feedback highlighted feelings of calmness, improved respiration, and reduced stress, with no adverse events reported. The study indicates that hand sensitization can enhance the perception of biofield sensations, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits for physical and psychological well-being. Practitioners may consider incorporating biofield sensitization techniques into therapeutic practices to improve patient well-being. However, key limitations include the unstandardized questionnaire and the narrow age range of participants, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Future research should explore the duration of biofield sensations and investigate the neuropsychological mechanisms underlying these experiences.

Ann L Baldwin et al. (2017) · Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)

This integrative review gathered every peer-reviewed study of Reconnective Healing — a biofield therapy (energy healing working with the field proposed to surround and permeate the body) in which the practitioner's hands typically stay off the body, often at growing distances. Despite worldwide training programs, only five qualifying studies existed, covering 197 measured participants. The authors searched five scientific databases, applied 18 quality criteria adapted from clinical-trial reporting standards, and scored every study independently (average quality 76%). The five studies ranged widely: a single-patient case report, two studies using electrodermal and gas-discharge-visualization (GDV) instruments, a physiological study of practitioners themselves, and one randomized placebo-controlled trial. The trial is the headline. Seventy-eight people with painful shoulder limitations were randomized to Reconnective Healing, Reiki, sham healing, physical therapy, or rest. After one 10-minute session, RH improved arm range of motion by 26 degrees on average — more than Reiki (20°) or physical therapy (12°), and far more than rest (3°) — with a large effect size (0.8, a substantial difference between groups). Pain dropped 24% after RH. Crucially, fake "sham" healing produced no significant improvement, which weakens a placebo explanation. Elsewhere, practitioners in a healing state showed measurably increased finger blood flow (p = 0.003), and a 74-year-old who had needed a walker for six months walked unaided after three sessions — though that single case had no controls at all. The review is honest about the limits: several studies used instruments that have never been properly validated, designs were too different to combine, and both review authors have published RH research themselves, including the trial reviewed. The fair reading: one well-designed trial suggests short-term benefit for shoulder mobility and pain, everything else is preliminary, and replication with follow-up is the necessary next step.

Bernie Garrett et al. (2021) · Nursing open

This 2021 rapid evidence assessment examined ten years of research on Therapeutic Touch (TT), one of the most widely practiced energy healing methods in nursing. TT practitioners hold their hands near — but not on — a patient's body, aiming to sense and rebalance the human biofield (a proposed energy field surrounding the body, related to concepts like qi and prana in traditional systems). Developed in 1972 within nursing, TT is still taught in nursing schools today, so two researchers set out to answer a direct question: how well does the recent evidence actually hold up? The reviewers screened seven research databases for every clinical TT study published between January 2009 and March 2020, following PRISMA systematic-review guidelines. From 3,290 records they identified 21 qualifying studies — 15 randomized controlled trials among them — covering 1,302 patients from premature infants to adults in their 90s, in settings from cancer care to post-surgical recovery. Each study was scored for evidence quality and risk of bias using standard appraisal tools. On the surface the results look remarkable: 18 of 21 studies reported benefits — less pain, less anxiety, better sleep, reduced nausea. But quality told a different story. Over 70% of the studies scored the minimum possible evidence rating, and only 4 of 21 had a low risk of bias — and those four stronger studies all found no difference between TT and control treatments (meaning the positive results came almost entirely from the weakest research). No study reported any adverse effects, so safety was not a concern. The review's picture of TT: it appears safe and many participants find it relaxing, but there is currently no high-quality evidence it works better than placebo or other relaxation approaches, and sessions can cost around $120/hour. The reviewers recommend that research first validate whether the biofield can be reliably detected and measured — foundational work that biofield science is actively pursuing — before more clinical trials are run.

Richard Hammerschlag et al. (2015) · Global advances in health and medicine

This framework paper asked whether the body's own energy fields deserve their own branch of physiology. The authors — including cell biologist Michael Levin, known for bioelectricity research in regeneration — define biofields as spatially distributed fields the body generates that can carry information and influence cells and tissues, complementing the familiar chemistry of hormones and neurotransmitters. Their starting point is disarmingly conventional: hospitals already read the body's fields every day. An ECG measures the heart's electrical field, an EEG the brain's; their magnetic counterparts (MCG and MEG) are standard research tools. The paper builds outward from there to less familiar findings: patterns of electrical voltage across cell membranes that guide how tissues develop and regenerate, direct-current fields that switch on when tissue is damaged, and ultraweak photon emission — extremely faint light the body gives off — whose fluctuations track cerebral blood flow, brain energy use, and EEG activity. The framework's second half addresses how such fields could be sensed: molecular receptors (including DNA regions reported to respond to specific electromagnetic frequencies), sites where electrical charge flows, and the body's own generated fields. As real-world proof that fields can heal, the authors point to pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for stubborn bone fractures, which a Cochrane review found may offer benefit and which the US FDA has approved. The honest limits are stated plainly: many findings are preliminary, the various fields have not been shown to form one coordinated regulatory system, and no mathematical model yet captures their long-range behavior. No condition was treated and no clinical claim is made. The paper's value is as a mechanism map — it gives energy-medicine research a physiological vocabulary grounded in measurable biology rather than metaphor alone.

Beverly Rubik et al. (2015) · Global advances in health and medicine

This foundational paper set out to define a single question: what exactly is the biofield? The authors — four researchers who helped establish the field — describe it as a complex organizing field of energy and information engaged in generating, maintaining, and regulating the body's self-balancing processes (homeodynamics). The term was coined in 1992 to give scientists and practitioners of energy medicine a common word for what traditions have long called qi (the vital functional energy of Chinese medicine) or prana (the life force in Indian traditions). Rather than running an experiment, the paper maps the concept's history and terminology. It shows how the idea grew out of vitalism (the historical view that living things carry a distinctive organizing force) into something researchers can study at many scales — from ultra-weak light emissions of cells (biophotons) to the electrical fields of the heart and brain that hospitals already measure every day with ECG and EEG machines. The authors' central move is connecting three worlds that rarely talk to each other: spiritual traditions describing energy pathways in the body, hands-on healing practices meant to support that flow, and laboratory biology showing that electromagnetic fields genuinely participate in development and tissue repair. They are careful about what this does and does not prove: the biofield is presented as a working concept and even a scientific metaphor — a hypothesis-generating tool — not an established mechanism. There are no statistics, patients, or outcomes here, and no health condition is addressed; the evidence level is expert synthesis. The paper's value is as the terminology cornerstone of biofield research: nearly every later study of Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, or energy healing devices builds on the definitions established in this supplement.

Janet M Marinelli et al. (2023) · Explore (New York, N.Y.)

This descriptive study with 14 participants explored what people experience during virtual energy healing — sessions held over Zoom, where the practitioner works with a client's biofield (the field of energy and information proposed to surround and permeate the body) while narrating aloud where their hands are working. The practice drew on Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, and Healing Touch, three energy healing methods that share grounding, clearing, and intention-setting for the client's highest good. Participants were members of a spiritually engaged community (average age 66) who each received one structured Zoom session from practitioners with decades of experience. Before and after, they rated their relaxation, well-being, and pain on a 1–10 scale, then answered open-ended questions about what they felt physically, emotionally, and spiritually. All three measures improved significantly. Relaxation rose from 5.0 to 7.9 (p = .0017 — unlikely due to chance), well-being from 5.9 to 8.0 (p = .0001), and pain dropped from 4.0 to 2.3 (p = .004). Just as telling were the six themes in participants' descriptions: embodied sensations such as tingling, warmth, and perceived colors; deep relaxation; release of worries; peace and calm; connection to themselves, others, and something larger; and outright surprise that it worked — several reported feeling the practitioner's hands on their body from miles away. Thirteen of fourteen said they would do it again. The honest caveats matter: there was no control group, the sample was small and spiritually inclined (likely to report favorably), and the design cannot show that energy healing caused the changes rather than relaxation, expectation, or attention. What the study does establish is that virtual delivery is experienced as real and satisfying, including by older adults — a useful foundation for controlled efficacy research on remote energy healing.

Luís Carlos Matos et al. (2021) · International journal of environmental research and public health

This narrative review examined how scientists have tried to measure what happens during non-contact energy healing practices such as Reiki, external Qigong, Therapeutic Touch, Healing Touch, and Johrei. These practices rest on the idea of a biofield — a proposed field of energy and information within and around the body — known in traditional systems as qi (the vital functional energy of Traditional Chinese Medicine), ki (its Japanese counterpart), or prana (the life force in Ayurvedic and yogic traditions). Practitioners work near the body, or even at a distance, holding a focused intention to support healing. Rather than running a new experiment, the authors gathered decades of quantitative studies and organized them by measurement strategy: physical detectors (electromagnetic, acoustic, and thermal instruments), chemical reaction dynamics, biological materials such as cultured cells and bacteria, living sensors like plants and seeds, and measurements taken on the human body itself. The collected findings are striking but inconsistent. One laboratory reported that external qi sped a glucose-oxidase chemical reaction by up to 400% from several meters away. A Reiki study found increased light emission and cartilage-related gene activity (collagen II and aggrecan, p < 0.05 — meaning unlikely due to chance) in cultured cells. One biofield treatment study reported 41% more cancer-cell death alongside 64% less death in healthy brain cells. Yet replication kept failing: an initial Qigong effect on cell growth (p = 0.036) vanished across 60 repeat experiments (p = 0.465), and Johrei produced no reproducible cellular response at all. A Brazilian team found laying-on-of-hands with inhibitory intention slowed bacterial growth (p = 0.002), but only when that specific intention was held. The honest picture: laboratory signals exist, replication is the field's central problem, and no clinical treatment claim can be made from this evidence. The authors call for standardized designs, ways to verify practitioner competence, and focused research on intention — useful directions for anyone following the science of energy healing.

Manasa Belal et al. (2023) · Global advances in integrative medicine and health

This systematic review synthesizes data from studies on perceptions of subtle pranic energy and the effects of biofield therapies, aiming to enhance understanding of their physical and emotional impacts. The research is significant as it bridges traditional healing practices with modern scientific inquiry, potentially benefiting integrative medicine. The study design involved a systematic review of qualitative and mixed-method research, analyzing nineteen relevant studies published between 1990 and 2022. The sample size varied across studies, focusing on individuals who reported experiences with subtle pranic energy. The intervention tested was not a specific treatment but included various biofield practices such as Reiki, Qigong, and Pranic Healing, with outcomes measured through qualitative interviews and surveys assessing physical, mental, and emotional changes. No specific duration or frequency was detailed as this was a review of existing studies. The meta-synthesis revealed significant experiences of pranic energy during biofield therapies, with participants reporting sensations of energy, including temperature variations and positive physical and psychological effects. Primary outcomes indicated that participants experienced awareness of pranic energy sensations, with no specific statistics provided. Secondary outcomes showed improvements in emotional well-being and physical comfort, although cognitive awareness during therapy did not demonstrate significant change. Qualitative findings highlighted participant-reported outcomes such as increased awareness of energy presence, physical sensations like warmth and tingling, and improved emotional well-being. Importantly, no adverse events were reported during the studies reviewed. The findings suggest that individuals across diverse demographics can benefit from biofield therapies, which may enhance mental and physical well-being. Practitioners could consider incorporating these therapies into their practices to improve patient outcomes. However, the study's limitations include a lack of rigorous empirical data to support personal reports of benefits and insufficient exploration of the mechanisms behind the reported sensations. Future research should focus on investigating these mechanisms and the relationships between different experiential themes to substantiate the therapeutic applications of biofield practices.