There is a history of association or exploitation of scientific inventions by individuals claiming that newly discovered science could help people to heal: In the 19th century, electricity and magnetism were in the “borderlands” of science and electrical quackery was rife. Thousands of devices claiming to heal via putative or veritable energy are used worldwide. Bio energy healing techniques pdf of them are illegal or dangerous and are marketed with false or unproven claims. Several of these devices have been banned.
Reliance on spiritual and energetic healings is associated with serious harm or death when medical treatment is delayed or foregone. Guides are available for practitioners, and other books aim to provide a theoretical basis and evidence for the practice. Energy medicine often proposes that imbalances in the body’s “energy field” result in illness, and that by re-balancing the body’s energy-field health can be restored. Usually, a practitioner will then recommend further treatments for complete healing.
The Buddha is often quoted by practitioners of energy medicine, but he did not practise “hands on or off” healing. This approach has been strongly criticised. A systematic review of 23 trials of distant healing published in 2000 did not draw definitive conclusions because of the “methodologic limitations of several studies”. He concluded that “as long as it is not used as an alternative to effective therapies, spiritual healing should be virtually devoid of risks. A 2001 randomised clinical trial by the same group found no statistically significant difference on chronic pain between distance healers and “simulated healers”.
A 2003 review by Ernst updating previous work concluded that more recent research had shifted the weight of evidence “against the notion that distant healing is more than a placebo” and that “distant healing can be associated with adverse effects. A 2001 randomised clinical trial randomly assigned 120 patients with chronic pain to either healers or “simulated healers”, but could not demonstrate efficacy for either distance or face-to-face healing. A systematic review in 2008 concluded that the evidence for a specific effect of spiritual healing on relieving neuropathic or neuralgic pain was not convincing. Ernst described the evidence base for healing practices to be “increasingly negative”. Ernst also warned that many of the reviews were under suspicion for fabricated data, lack of transparency, and scientific misconduct. A 2014 study of energy healing for colorectal cancer patients showed no improvement in quality of life, depressive symptoms, mood, or sleep quality.
The report concluded that “sychologists and researchers should be wary of using such techniques, and make efforts to inform the public about the ill effects of therapies that advertise miraculous claims. There are primarily two explanations for anecdotes of cures or improvements, relieving any need to appeal to the supernatural. These patients would have improved just as well even had they done nothing. In both cases the patient may experience a real reduction in symptoms, though in neither case has anything miraculous or inexplicable occurred. Both cases, are strictly limited to the body’s natural abilities.