Reiki (霊気, /ˈreɪkiː/) is a form of alternative medicine called energy healing.

Reiki practitioners use a

technique called palm healing or hands-on healing through which a "universal energy" is said to be
transferred through the palms of the practitioner to the patient in order to encourage emotional or
physical healing.

Reiki is a pseudoscience,[1] and is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in scholarly texts and
academic journal articles. It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force,
although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists.[2][3] Clinical research has not shown
reiki to be effective as a treatment for any medical condition.[2] There has been no proof of the
effectiveness of reiki therapy compared to placebo. An overview of reiki investigations found that
studies reporting positive effects had methodological flaws. The American Cancer Society stated that
reiki should not replace conventional cancer treatment,[4] a sentiment echoed by Cancer Research
UK[5] and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health.[6]

Developed in Japan in 1922 by Mikao Usui,[1][7] it has been adapted into varying cultural traditions
across the world.
 Etymology
Mikao Usui 臼井甕男 (1865–1926)

Chujiro Hayashi 林 忠次郎 (1880–1940)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the English alternative medicine word reiki is etymologically
from Japanese reiki (霊気) "mysterious atmosphere, miraculous sign" (first recorded in 1001), combining
rei "soul, spirit" and ki "vital energy"—the Sino-Japanese reading of Chinese língqì (靈氣) "numinous
atmosphere".[8] The earliest recorded English usage dates to 1975.[9]

The Japanese reiki is commonly written as レイキ in katakana syllabary or as 霊気 in shinjitai "new
character form" kanji. It compounds the words rei (霊: "spirit, miraculous, divine") and ki (気; qi: "gas,
vital energy, breath of life, consciousness").[10] Ki is additionally defined as "... spirits; one's feelings,
mood, frame of mind; temperament, temper, disposition, one's nature, character; mind to do
something, intention, will; care, attention, precaution". Some reiki translation equivalents from
Japanese-English dictionaries are: "feeling of mystery,"[11] "an atmosphere (feeling) of mystery",[12]
and "an ethereal atmosphere (that prevails in the sacred precincts of a shrine); (feel, sense) a spiritual
(divine) presence."[13] Besides the usual Sino-Japanese pronunciation reiki, these kanji 霊気 have an
alternate Japanese reading, namely ryōge, meaning "demon; ghost" (especially in spirit
possession).[14][15]

Chinese língqì 靈氣 was first recorded in the (ca. 320 BCE) Neiye "Inward Training" section of the Guanzi,
describing early Daoist meditation techniques. "That mysterious vital energy within the mind: One
moment it arrives, the next it departs. So fine, there is nothing within it; so vast, there is nothing outside
it. We lose it because of the harm caused by mental agitation."[16] Modern Standard Chinese língqì is
translated by Chinese-English dictionaries as: "(of beautiful mountains) spiritual influence or
atmosphere";[17] "1. intelligence; power of understanding; 2. supernatural power or force in fairy tales;
miraculous power or force";[18] and "1. spiritual influence (of mountains/etc.); 2. ingeniousness;
cleverness."[19]
 Basis
Main article: Vitalism

Reiki's teachings and adherents claim that qi is physiological and can be manipulated to treat a disease
or condition. The existence of qi has not been established by medical research.[2] Therefore, reiki is a
pseudoscientific theory based on metaphysical concepts.[1]

The existence of the proposed mechanism for reiki—qi or "life force" energy—has not been scientifically
established.[2][21] Most research on reiki is poorly designed and prone to bias. There is no reliable
empirical evidence that reiki is helpful for treating any medical condition,[2][4][5] although some
physicians have said it might help promote general well-being.[5] In 2011, William T. Jarvis of The
National Council Against Health Fraud stated that there "is no evidence that clinical reiki's effects are
due to anything other than suggestion" or the placebo effect.[22]

The April 22, 2014 Skeptoid podcast episode titled "Your Body's Alleged Energy Fields" relates a reiki
practitioner's report of what was happening as she passed her hands over a subject's body:

What we'll be looking for here, within John's auric field, is any areas of intense heat, unusual coldness,
a repelling energy, a dense energy, a magnetizing energy, tingling sensations, or actually the body
attracting the hands into that area where it needs the reiki energy, and balancing of John's qi.[23]

Evaluating these claims scientific skeptic author Brian Dunning reported:

...his aura, his qi, his reiki energy. None of these have any counterpart in the physical world. Although
she attempted to describe their properties as heat or magnetism, those properties are already taken
by—well, heat and magnetism. There are no properties attributable to the mysterious field she
describes, thus it cannot be authoritatively said to exist."[23]
 Scholarly evaluation

Reiki is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in scholarly texts and academic journal
articles.[1][24][25][26][27] Emily Rosa became the youngest person to publish in the medical literature
at eleven years old when her school science project was published by the Journal of the American
Medical Association demonstrating that reiki practitioners could not detect the alleged "life force" under
experimental conditions.[28] A double-blind study where people were trained to administer reiki or
another treatment found that the practitioners found no difference in terms of ability to feel 'energy
force' in either procedure.[29]

In criticizing the State University of New York for offering a continuing education course on reiki, one
source stated, "reiki postulates the existence of a universal energy unknown to science and thus far
undetectable surrounding the human body, which practitioners can learn to manipulate using their
hands,"[30] and others said, "In spite of its [reiki] diffusion, the baseline mechanism of action has not
been demonstrated..."[31] and, "Neither the forces involved nor the alleged therapeutic benefits have
been demonstrated by scientific testing."[32]

Several authors have pointed to the vitalistic energy which reiki is claimed to treat,[33][34][35] with one
saying, "Ironically, the only thing that distinguishes reiki from Therapeutic Touch is that it [reiki] involves
actual touch,"[35] and others stating that the International Center for Reiki Training "mimic[s] the
institutional aspects of science" seeking legitimacy but holds no more promise than an alchemy
society.[36]

A guideline published by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of

Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation states, "Reiki therapy should probably not be considered for the treatment of PDN
[painful diabetic neuropathy]."[37] Canadian sociologist Susan J. Palmer has listed reiki as among the
pseudoscientific healing methods used by cults in France to attract members.[38]
 Evidence quality

A 2008 systematic review of 9 randomized clinical trials found several shortcomings in the literature on
reiki.[39] Depending on the tools used to measure depression and anxiety, the results varied and were
not reliable or valid. Furthermore, the scientific community has been unable to replicate the findings of
studies that support reiki. The review also found issues in reporting methodology in some of the
literature, in that often there were parts omitted completely or not clearly described.[39] Frequently in
these studies, sample sizes were not calculated and adequate allocation and double-blind procedures
were not followed. The review also reported that such studies exaggerated the effectiveness of
treatment and there was no control for differences in experience of reiki practitioners or even the same
practitioner at times produced different outcomes. None of the studies in the review provided a
rationale for the treatment duration and no study reported adverse effects.[39]