Ki

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.

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.