Talk:Reiki

One sided

This summary of Reiki is immensely one sided, doesn't site any successful case studies or information that encourages research into effectiveness. Calling it a "pseudoscience" is also subjective and not an objective description. Wiki just lost any future funding from me, and reduced credibility even more (already had concerns about accuracy of other information). ~2026-46975-67 (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

We won't violate website policy (WP:PSCI) in order for WMF to receive funding from you. Some stuff can't be bought with money. Wikipedia is not for sale. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I've NEVER commented on an article although I've used Wikipedia for many, many years. Although I've come across articles which seemed tainted by one particular view rather than objective, the one about Reiki beats anything I've seen in terms of bias and one-sidedness. It is based on an outdated view of science which in my opinion is harmful to the Earth and all living beings. WHY isn't there any warning on top, stating that this is NOT a universally accepted view? Is there a Wikipedia police that controls certain pages? I support Wikipedia financially and will not change this, because it has mostly served me well, but I find the control that some users have over this page rather disturbing. Chai&Cleo (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

To change what you perceive as one-sidedness, all you have to do is bring sources to the conversation that support your point of view. If they are reliable WP:RS or WP:MEDRS then you'll have no problem changing things to your POV. Your views about warnings and universally accepted views is just hogwash. You and I are the wikipolice btw, and all we need are reliable sources. If you can't get with the plan, then go away. Thanks. - Walter Ego 18:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Wow, a bit hostile, aren't you. "Go away" is such an unfriendly argument. Chai&Cleo (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

You missed "If you can't get with the plan". And it's true: you have to follow the rules or go away. That's not "hostile", it's a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Nothing is universally accepted. We simply render WP:SPOV. It is not our task to change how mainstream science works in real life. We simply take mainstream science for granted.

Thinking you can change the POV of the article is false hope. Reiki does not have a plausible mechanism of action, nor has it objective effectiveness. It is used in medical handbooks as a paramount example of pseudoscience.

Reiki is used in mainstream hospitals as fake therapy, which nevertheless soothes nervous patients. See https://www.nature.com/articles/526295a for details. So, it's a very cynical use of Reiki, and it in no way proves its healing power. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Taking mainstream science for granted is so limited. And you cite one article from 14 October 2015 which I can't read unless I pay $40, all I can see is the summary sentence: "Investigate and incorporate the mechanisms of complementary medicine instead of rejecting it outright, says Jo Marchant." which doesn't support your claim. Clearly we have different POVs, but I'm surprized by the militant hostility of those who answer comments here. Chai&Cleo (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2026 (UTC) — Chai&Cleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

is so limited—these are the bounds within which Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia isn't Conservapedia, nor https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Welcome_to_FreeWiki , nor https://en.anthro.wiki/Main_Page . WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to edit the article as you see fit, as long as you are referencing reliable sources. Defending a (not even particularly high) bar to entry is how wikipedia maintains its integrity. Provide reliable sources. It's that easy. Lostsandwich (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Request to update the research and evidence section

I am writing to request that editors consider updating the current wording of the "Research and critical evaluation" and "Evidence quality" sections to reflect more recent peer-reviewed research and, importantly, to make a clearer distinction between Reiki as a proposed treatment for a medical disease and Reiki as a complementary practice that may support a person's wellbeing while they are experiencing illness or undergoing medical treatment.

I am a Reiki practitioner and teacher, so I have a potential conflict of interest regarding the subject. For that reason, I am not proposing to edit the article directly. I am instead presenting the published literature for independent consideration by Wikipedia editors.

I am not suggesting that Reiki should be recognised as a treatment or cure for any medical disease or that it should replace evidence-based medical care. I would strongly oppose such a representation.

The distinction I believe is currently missing is between treating a disease and supporting the person who has the disease.

A person undergoing cancer treatment, surgery or treatment for another medical condition may experience anxiety, stress, difficulty sleeping, pain or simply the emotional strain of being unwell. A complementary practice may potentially help that person feel more relaxed, calmer or better supported without treating the underlying disease itself.

This is not unique to Reiki. For example, massage does not claim to cure cancer or treat the underlying cause of most medical diseases, but a person may nevertheless feel more relaxed, comfortable or cared for after receiving a massage. The fact that a supportive practice does not treat the underlying disease does not necessarily mean that any improvement in wellbeing is medically meaningless.

I believe the Wikipedia article should therefore distinguish between claims that Reiki treats or cures medical conditions, for which there is insufficient evidence, and research investigating whether Reiki may influence subjective or supportive outcomes, such as anxiety, relaxation, pain perception, stress or quality of life.

The current article states that "clinical research does not show reiki to be effective as a treatment for any medical condition" and subsequently focuses heavily on the absence of evidence for Reiki as a medical treatment. That statement is important in preventing inappropriate claims about Reiki, but it does not adequately describe the more nuanced question being investigated in some of the subsequent research.

There is now a body of research investigating outcomes such as anxiety, pain and quality of life. For example, a 2014 systematic review of seven randomised studies concluded that the available evidence suggested Reiki may have effects on pain and anxiety, while also emphasising that the number of studies was limited and that larger, better-standardised trials were needed.

More recent research has continued to investigate these supportive outcomes. A 2024 meta-analysis involving 824 participants reported a statistically significant effect on anxiety, although substantial heterogeneity between studies means that the result should be interpreted cautiously. A 2024 randomised clinical trial in cardiac surgery also reported favourable effects on preoperative anxiety. These findings do not demonstrate that Reiki treats cardiac disease or anxiety disorders; they investigate particular experiences and outcomes associated with receiving Reiki.

It is also important that the article continues to acknowledge research that has not found significant effects and the methodological limitations of the existing literature. The 2015 Cochrane review, for example, found insufficient evidence to determine whether Reiki was useful for people with anxiety or depression and identified limitations in the available randomised studies.

Similarly, the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health currently states that Reiki has not been clearly shown to be effective for any health-related purpose and that research has produced inconsistent results. At the same time, NCCIH describes Reiki as a complementary health approach and does not suggest that people should use it instead of conventional medical treatment.

I therefore suggest that the article's current wording be revised to make this distinction clearer.

A possible neutral summary would be:

"Research has not established Reiki as a treatment or cure for any medical disease or condition, and it should not be considered a replacement for evidence-based medical care. However, research has investigated whether Reiki may have supportive effects on experiences such as anxiety, pain, stress, relaxation and quality of life in people who are unwell or undergoing medical treatment. Some studies and reviews have reported potentially beneficial effects for particular outcomes, while others have found no significant effects. The evidence remains heterogeneous and is limited by factors including small sample sizes, differences in study design and treatment protocols, and methodological concerns. Further well-designed research is required to determine whether any observed benefits are specific to Reiki or may arise from factors such as relaxation, attention, expectation or placebo effects."

I believe this wording would be more accurate because it does not make the claim that Reiki heals, cures or treats disease. It instead recognises that there is a legitimate research question concerning whether a person receiving Reiki may experience improvements in aspects of their wellbeing while receiving conventional medical care.

That distinction is particularly important in healthcare settings. A complementary practice can potentially have value without being a medical treatment for the underlying disease. The absence of evidence that something cures a disease should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that the experience of receiving it cannot influence how a person feels or copes while living with that disease.

I am not asking that positive research be given greater weight than negative research. I am asking that the article accurately reflect the current research landscape and distinguish between disease treatment claims and supportive wellbeing outcomes.

I would therefore be grateful if editors familiar with Wikipedia's medical sourcing requirements could review the more recent literature and consider whether the current wording and evidence summary should be updated. ~2026-48763-78 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

More recent research that may warrant inclusion

The following peer-reviewed studies and reviews may warrant consideration when updating the article's discussion of research. I have deliberately included studies with positive, mixed and insufficient findings rather than selecting only favourable results.

Lee, Pittler & Ernst (2008) – Reiki: a systematic review of the evidence. Systematic review of nine randomised clinical trials. The authors concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish Reiki as an effective treatment for any condition. This remains relevant evidence, but it predates the substantial body of research published subsequently.

Thrane & Cohen (2014) – Effect of Reiki Therapy on Pain and Anxiety in Adults: An Evidence-based Literature Review. Systematic review of seven studies. The authors concluded that the available evidence suggested Reiki may be effective for pain and anxiety, while emphasising the limited number and quality of studies and the need for larger, better-designed trials.

Joyce & Herbison (2015) – Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression. Cochrane systematic review of three studies. The authors found insufficient evidence to determine whether Reiki was useful for anxiety or depression and identified methodological limitations in the available research.

Morero et al. (2021) – Effects of Reiki on Mental Health Care: A Systematic Review. Systematic review of 11 studies. The authors concluded that the findings suggested a potential beneficial role for Reiki in mental health care, while recommending larger samples, consistent randomised controlled trials and standardised protocols.

Zadro & Stapleton (2022) – Does Reiki Benefit Mental Health Symptoms Above Placebo?. Systematic review and meta-analysis examining Reiki compared with placebo. The review reported evidence of effects above placebo for some mental-health outcomes, while also noting that the number of studies for individual outcomes was small and that the evidence remained inconclusive in several areas.

Şişman et al. (2023) – The effect of Reiki on anxiety, fear, pain, and oxygen saturation in abdominal surgery patients. Randomised controlled trial involving 93 patients undergoing open abdominal surgery, with Reiki, sham Reiki and control groups. The study investigated anxiety, surgical fear, pain and oxygen saturation, rather than treatment of the underlying surgical condition.

Guo et al. (2024) – Therapeutic effects of Reiki on interventions for anxiety: a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis involving 13 controlled studies and 824 participants. The analysis found a statistically significant reduction in anxiety (SMD −0.82, 95% CI −1.29 to −0.36, p=0.001). However, heterogeneity between the studies was substantial (I²=88.5%), and the authors noted that results were less consistent in some preoperative and cancer populations.

Gomes et al. (2024) – Effectiveness of Reiki therapy for preoperative anxiety in cardiac surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Randomised clinical trial involving 88 cardiac surgery patients. The study reported favourable effects on preoperative anxiety and related outcomes. Importantly, the study investigated anxiety and wellbeing surrounding medical treatment, not treatment or cure of the underlying cardiac disease.

Akpinar et al. (2024) – Is Reiki effective in reducing heart rhythm, cortisol levels and anxiety levels in patients with cardiac disease?. Controlled study examining Reiki in patients with cardiac disease. The study reported reductions in cortisol and anxiety in the Reiki group. These outcomes concern the patient's experience and physiological response, rather than treatment of the underlying cardiac disease.

Liu et al. (2025) – Effects of Reiki therapy on quality of life: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis of 11 randomised controlled trials involving 661 participants. The analysis found a statistically significant improvement in quality of life (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.01–0.56, p=0.043). The authors also reported substantial heterogeneity between studies (I²=65.1%).

Şişman et al. (2026) – Effect of Reiki on Surgical Fear and Anxiety in Cholecystectomy Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Three-arm randomised controlled trial involving 48 patients undergoing laparoscopic gallbladder surgery, comparing Reiki, sham Reiki and control groups. The study reported statistically significant reductions in surgical fear and anxiety in the Reiki group.

Yüce et al. (2026) – Does Reiki Therapy Reduce Preoperative Anxiety and Postoperative Pain in Third Molar Surgery? A Randomized Controlled Trial. Randomised controlled trial involving 180 patients undergoing third molar surgery, comparing Reiki, sham Reiki and no intervention. Reiki did not significantly reduce preoperative anxiety, but postoperative pain was significantly lower in the Reiki group. This is an important example of the mixed findings in the newer literature.

Karacan et al. (2026) – Effect of Reiki on Pain, Anxiety, and Hemodynamic Parameters in Mechanically Ventilated Patients. Randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating Reiki in mechanically ventilated patients. The study examined pain, anxiety and physiological parameters, again illustrating that some contemporary research is concerned with supportive outcomes experienced by patients rather than Reiki as a treatment for the underlying disease.

2026 systematic review of Reiki and/or Therapeutic Touch in palliative settings – Reiki and Therapeutic Touch for symptom burden and quality of life in palliative settings. Systematic review of nine studies involving 415 participants receiving palliative care. Some studies reported improvements in symptoms and quality-of-life domains including sleep, relaxation, energy, hope and emotional wellbeing. Qualitative findings also described perceived relaxation, comfort and emotional support. The review identified concerns about risk of bias and noted that reporting of harms was limited.

These studies do not establish Reiki as a treatment or cure for disease. Rather, they illustrate a growing body of research investigating whether Reiki may influence outcomes such as anxiety, pain, comfort, relaxation and quality of life in people who are ill, undergoing medical procedures or receiving palliative care.

I believe this distinction is important when considering the current wording of the Wikipedia article. The question of whether Reiki treats a disease is different from the question of whether receiving Reiki may support a person's wellbeing while they are living with or being treated for a disease.

I am not suggesting that Reiki should replace conventional medical treatment, nor that Reiki has been demonstrated to cure or heal disease. I am suggesting that the latter research question is legitimate and is now represented by a growing number of controlled studies and systematic reviews.

The evidence is also clearly mixed. Some studies report benefits, some report no significant effect for particular outcomes, and the research has important methodological limitations. I therefore believe the article should present this more recent evidence alongside the older reviews rather than relying predominantly on the older evidence base.

A useful distinction would be between:

"Reiki as a treatment or cure for a medical disease: this has not been established by the available evidence. Reiki as a complementary practice that may support aspects of a person's wellbeing while they are receiving medical care: this is an area that has been investigated in clinical research, with some studies reporting benefits for outcomes such as anxiety, pain and quality of life, while other studies report no significant effects."

This distinction does not require Reiki to be considered a medical treatment. A complementary practice can potentially have value to a person without treating the underlying disease. For example, massage does not claim to cure cancer or cardiovascular disease, but a person may nevertheless feel more relaxed, comfortable or supported after receiving a massage. Similarly, a research finding that a person receiving Reiki experiences less anxiety or greater relaxation would not demonstrate that Reiki has treated the disease itself. ~2026-48763-78 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

A better statement, supported by a wealth of evidence would be "There is zero evidence showing reiki as anything but another scam in a long line of new age, feel good mumbo jumbo"

All of those "studies" are poorly designed, poorly controlled, and/or self-reported bunk, with a good number outright saying "well we couldn't show that it did... but we didn't find it didn't either!" Lostsandwich (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)