Vitalism

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.

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.