| Biofield Therapeutics
Biofield (see the glossary) therapeutics, often called energy healing
or laying on of hands, is one of the oldest forms of healing known to
humankind. Discovery, partial characterization, and use of the biofield
have risen independently among peoples and cultures in every sector of
the world (see table 1). The earliest Eastern references are in the Huang
Ti Nei Ching Su Wên (The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Internal Medicine),
variously dated between 2,500 and 5,000 years ago (Veith, 1949). The earliest
Western references are in hieroglyphics and in depictions of biofield
healings dating from Egypt's Third Dynasty.3 Hippocrates, a major figure
in Western medicine, referred to the biofield as "the force which flows
from many people's hands" (Schiegl, 1983). Franz von Mesmer, an Austrian
physician who investigated and popularized this process in the late 18th
century, referred to the biofield as "animal magnetism" to ~differentiate
it from "metal magnetism," which he understood to be a similar but different
medium (Mesmer, 1980). In the United States, use increased after Mesmer's
"magnetic healing" became popular in the 1830s. (Among others, both Andrew
Still (founder of osteopathy) and Daniel Palmer (founder of chiropractic)
practiced for a time as magnetic healers (Gevitz, 1993). Historically,
beliefs about causation in this type of healing have clustered around
two views that remain active today. The first is that the "healing force"
comes from a source other than the practitioner, such as God, the cosmos,
or another supernatural entity. The second is that a human biofield, directed,
modified, or amplified in some fashion by the practitioner, is the operative
mechanism. Some of the terms presented in table 1 are devoid of religious
or spiritual overtones, while others carry religious aspects common to
the culture in which they were or are used. Therapeutic application of
the biofield is a process during which the practitioner places his or
her hands either directly on or very near the physical body of the person
being treated. In so ~doing, the practitioner engages the perceived biofield
from his or her hands with the recipient's perceived biofield either to
promote general health or to treat a specific dysfunction. The person
being treated, who is usually clothed, reclines in some forms of the process
but is seated in others. The process is not instantaneous, as it is in
"faith healing." (Faith is not a factor in the biofield process.) Treatment
sessions may take from 20 minutes to an hour or more; a series of sessions
is often needed to complete treatment of some disorders. The ability to
perform biofield healing appears to be universal, although most people
seem unaware of possessing the talent. As with any innate talent, practice
and learning appropriate techniques improve results. There is consensus
among practitioners that the biofield that permeates the physical body
also extends outward from the body for several inches. Therefore, no real
difference is seen between placing the hands directly on the body (either
by direct skin contact or through ~clothing) or in close proximity to
the body. In either case, the practitioner's biofield is understood to
come into confluence with the recipient's biofield. There are advantages
and disadvantages to each approach in clinical applications.4 Extension
of the external portion of the biofield is considered variable and dependent
on the person's emotional state and state of health. Practitioners describe
the external portion, sometimes called the "aura," as tactilely detectable
(see the "Biofield Diagnostics" section) and less dense than the portion
permeating the physical body. Biofield practitioners have a holistic focus,
for most treatment sessions produce results that encompass more than one
aspect of the person's health. Within that focus there is, however, a
range of therapeutic intents: • General (e.g., stress relief, improvement
of general health and vitality). • Biologic (e.g., reduction of inflammation,
edema, chronic and acute pain; change in ~hematocrit and T-cell levels;
and acceleration of wound healing and fracture repair). • Vegetative functions
(e.g., improvement of appetite, digestion, and sleep patterns). • Emotional
states (e.g., changes in anxiety, grief, depression, and feelings of self-worth).
• Dysfunctions often classified psychosomatic (e.g., treatment of eating
disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, premenstrual syndrome, and posttraumatic
stress disorder). Some practitioners incorporate mental healing, or focused
intent to heal, as part of their biofield treatments. This is also called
psychic healing, distant healing, nonlocal healing, and absent healing.
Mental healing can also be performed by itself at a considerable distance
from the recipient. It is an active process on the practitioner's part,
involving centered, focused concentration; it may include various imagery
(visualization) techniques as well. (See the "Imagery" section and the
"Prayer and Mental Healing" section in the "Mind-Body Interventions" chapter.)~A
related mind effect sometimes used in biofield healing is described as
the practitioner, by effort of will, extending the biofield (principally
from the hands) into the recipient's body with increased force, sometimes
from a distance of several feet. Chinese qigong masters are considered
especially adept at this. The process appears to be draining; interviews
with practitioners who do this procedure indicate they are limited in
the number of treatments they can perform in a day. Some practitioners
meditate before giving a treatment in order to enter a so-called healing
space; some others maintain a meditative state during treatment. Biofield
diagnostics. Detailed diagnostic methods have been developed to determine
the condition of the patient's general health and present disorder by
sensing, with touch, subtle perturbations in the biofield (clairsentience).
Janet Quinn, researcher of the therapeutic touch method, writes that "assessment
[of the external portion] focuses on perceiving the way this energy is
flowing and is distributed in the patient" (Krieger, 1992). Patricia Heidt
adds that areas of "accumulated tension" or "congested energy" are detected
(Heidt, 1981b). Barbara ~Brennan, developer of the healing science method,
describes the use of "high sense perception," which includes other subtle
perceptions of the external biofield (Brennan, 1987). Biofield researcher
Richard Pavek writes of similar subtle tactile cues detected when the
hands are placed directly on the body during SHEN 5therapy as "changes
in temperature . . ., tingles, prickles, 'electricity' (sensation of light
static), pressure or `magnetism' . . . sensations are usually different
over an area of physical pain, inflammation, tension and/or when release
of emotion occurs" (Pavek, 1987, p. 57). Many practitioners develop their
treatment plans entirely by interpreting these various tactile sensations.
Others use biofield diagnostics to supplement conventional methods, such
as nursing diagnostic forms or chronic pain evaluation forms. Current
status. Considerable interchange of technique occurs between Europe and
the United States and some between the United States and Asia.~United
States. The process of using biofields has been treated with a reflexive
mixture of awe and disgust, reverence and fear, and belief and disbelief,
but this situation appears to be changing as more and more people seriously
investigate the process from a critically neutral perspective. No formal
census is available, but reasonable estimates suggest that some 50,000
practitioners in the United States provide about 120 million sessions
annually (Pavek, 1994). Of these, about 30,000 have trained in therapeutic
touch (Benor, 1994). For some, it is a major part of their vocational
activity; others use the process occasionally to help family and friends.
Many practitioners have had no formal training in the process, and many
have independently discovered biofield effects. Others learned rudimentary
techniques from friends or trained in one of several schools that teach
various forms of the process. Reviews of school enrollment records indicate
that most practitioners are women. Some practitioners, often those who
have independently discovered the process, and some teachers ascribe to
it a religious or spiritual basis. A few link the process with specific
~religious activities. No State has licensing requirements for biofield
practitioners. Because legal constraints in many States prohibit the use
of the terms patient and treatment, most practitioners use the terms receiver
and session in describing their work. Some, possibly because they fear
being charged with practicing medicine without a license, have cloaked
themselves by incorporating under the name of a healing church. They often
deny attempting to treat biological disorders and describe their process
as "healing the spirit," from which "healing of the physical" will follow.
In the past 20 years or so, formal training in the process has emerged
in considerable strength in this country. At this time several teaching
establishments with standardized training programs teach different forms
of the process; most grant certificates. Schools differ considerably in
curriculum, focus, length of training, extent of internship, and certification
requirements. Some schools are semistructured associations of instructors
trained in a ~particular method; others are more centrally organized.
The major biofield therapies used in the United States are summarized
in table 2. At least four forms of biofield therapy--healing science,
healing touch, SHEN therapy, and therapeutic touch--have been taught in
a number of medical establishments. Currently, student nurses are trained
in one or another system in more than 90 colleges and universities around
the world. Acupuncturists, massage practitioners, and nurses who pass
these courses receive continuing education credit from several State bureaus
for training in these four forms. Most of the practitioners of this process
work independent of conventional medical and health practitioners. The
conventional practitioner may occasionally be aware that his or her patient-client
is seeing a biofield practitioner collaterally, but most are not. However,
while much of the current activity in this discipline can be considered
separate and ~alternative, the process is beginning to seep upward into
mainstream medical and health practices. It is likely that several thousand
practitioners of conventional therapies currently combine one or another
of the biofield therapy processes with their primary approaches. Among
these are nurses, counselors, psychotherapists, chiropractors, and massage
practitioners who at least occasionally use a form of biofield therapy
as an adjunct. At least three forms are currently in use in hospitals:
healing touch and therapeutic touch are used for a variety of reasons
in several hospitals (Quinn, 1981, 1993), and SHEN therapy is used in
alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and codependent recovery programs in a few
hospitals (Sunshine and Wright, 1986). Europe. The United States falls
far behind other countries in legal recognition of biofield therapy. Currently,
more than 8,500 registered healers in the United Kingdom (British Medical
Association, 1993) "are permitted to `give healing' (a term for the process
in common usage in the United Kingdom) at the request of patients" (p.
92). Approval has been obtained to use the process at the 1,500 government
hospitals. In some situations, ~biofield healers are paid under the U.K.
National Health Service (Benor, 1993). Physicians receive postgraduate
education credits for attending courses in the biofield process, and healers
are able to purchase liability insurance policies similar to those covering
physicians (Benor, 1992). In Poland and Russia, biofield healing is being
incorporated into conventional medical practice; some medical schools
include instruction in the process in the curriculum. In Russia, the process
is under investigation by the Academy of Science. In Bulgaria, a government-appointed
scientific body assesses abilities and recommends licensing for those
who pass rigorous examinations (Benor, 1992). Asia. China leads the rest
of the world in research on therapeutic application and methods of increasing
biofield effects. Biofield healing is called wei qi liao fa, or "medical
qigong" (chi kung), in China, where proficient practitioners are called
"qigong masters." Qigong masters are described as having developed their
qi (biofield) to a high degree through qigong exercises.6 (A few qigong
masters are reported to be able to anesthetize patients for surgery ~solely
with this method [Houshen, 1988]). Reduction of secondary cancers by medical
qigong masters is commonly reported; there are clinics for that purpose
alone. Departments of medical qigong research exist in every college of
traditional Chinese medicine in China. Both national and regional governments
sponsor periodic international conferences on medical qigong. American
researchers are frequently invited to present papers at these conferences.
Explanatory models. No generally accepted theory accounts for the phenomena
of biofields. As one might expect of a discipline often perceived as bordering
between superstition and random process on the one hand and science and
technique on the other, there are profound differences--both inside the
discipline among practitioners and researchers, and outside among theoreticians--as
to the exact nature of the phenomena. In many cases, the view of the biofield
is not a clearly defined one; it often mixes concepts of physics and metaphysics,
or ancient and modern wisdoms (see the glossary). ~The current major hypotheses
are that the biofield is • metaphysical (outside the four dimensions of
space and time and untestable), • an electromagnetic field effect, and
• a presently undefined but potentially quantifiable field effect in physics.
There are three metaphysical approaches: • Spiritual energy. Practitioners
of some methods believe that they are channeling a spiritual energy that
has innate intelligence or logic and knows where and to what extent it
is required (Baginski and Sharamon, 1988). Reiki and also "radiance,"
a form of reiki, are examples of this view (Ray, 1987). Reiki teaches
that the practitioner is merely a conduit for spiritual energy. After
training, the practitioner is initiated and given the power to heal; sacred
symbols are often used to give added power to the process (Jarrell, 1992).
Another system ~with a similar approach, mari-el, incorporates the use
of angels or spiritual guides in the healing practice. • Interacting human
and universal energy fields. Heidt and others have postulated that both
the healer and the healed are vibrating fields of energy (Heidt, 1981b)
that interact with the environmental energy field around them for healing
purposes. Brennan describes a similar process as one of "harmonic induction"
(Brennan, 1987). • Repatterning of resonant vibratory fields. Going further,
Quinn and nurse-theorist Rogers state that current assumptions (about
Therapeutic Touch), which remain "untested" and "untestable," [are that]
people are energy fields. We are not saying that people have energy fields
in addition to what they are. . . . [Instead they are] open systems engaged
in continuous interaction with the environmental energy field. [Therefore]
when a person is "sick" there is an imbalance in the person's energy field,
[and] when a person uses his or her intent to help or heal a person, the
energy field of the person may repattern towards greater wellness. . .
. The Therapeutic Touch practitioner knowingly participates in . . . "a
healing ~meditation," facilitates repatterning of the recipient's energy
field through a process of resonance, rather than "energy exchange or
transfer" (Quinn, 1993). The healing intervention is seen as a "purposive
patterning of energy fields, a mutual process in which the nurse uses
his or her hands as a mediating focus in the continuing patterning of
the mutual patient-environment energy field process" (Rogers, 1990). In
addition, certain models in physics may offer some explanation of biofield
phenomena. Although quantum physics, the branch of physics that treats
atomic and subatomic particles, has been proposed to explain the effects
of a related phenomenon, mental healing at a distance (see the "Mind-Body
Interventions" chapter), it has not proved to be a useful model to explain
biofield healing. For example, Brennan states, "I am quite unable to explain
these experiences without using the old [classical physics] frameworks"
(Brennan, 1987, p. 26). Classical physics is a model that is applied with
high precision to large-scale phenomena involving relatively slow motion,
such as the flow of fluids, electromagnetic currents and ~waves, hydraulics,
aerodynamics, and atmospheric physics. It appears to be a reasonable model
to apply in studying biofield phenomena. Indeed, much of the terminology
used by biofield practitioners to describe their work--while somewhat
imprecise and variable--clearly describes quantitative and qualitative
factors similar to those in fields of classical physics. For example,
qi appears to be equivalent to flux in electromagnetic fields, for it
describes direction and quantity of field. Polarity between the hands
and between different bodily regions appears to be equivalent to polar
difference in electromagnetic fields and to pressure differential in hydrodynamics.
Pavek describes the biofield as having "circulating [flux] patterns .
. . similar in formation and function to magnetic fields or electrostatic
fields" (Pavek, 1987, p. 61). (See table 3 for other analogies.) Around
1850, Karl von Reichenbach (discoverer of kerosene and paraffin) demonstrated
apparent biofield polarities and determined apparent velocity through
a copper rod to be about 4 meters per second (von Reichenbach, 1851).7
In 1947, L.E. Eeman demonstrated a polarity through the arms and hands
and another through the spine with his device known ~as an Eeman screen
(Eeman, 1947). (See fig. 2.) In about 1950 Randolph Stone, developer of
polarity therapy, determined that flux density showed polarities within
the physical body (Stone, 1986). In 1978, Pavek compared paired-hand placements
and reversed paired-hand placements on patients by hundreds of trained
and untrained practitioners; he noted that one arrangement consistently
resulted in relaxation and feelings of well-being but that the other set
consistently produced agitation and anxiety. From this he deduced normal
(healthy) qi polarities and movement patterns in the body (Pavek, 1987).
(See fig. 3.) In 1985 Pavek expanded on these findings by demonstrating
coherent linkages between qi patterns, emotional holding patterns, and
autocontractile pain response while developing biofield treatments for
disorders often classified as psychosomatic (Pavek, 1988b; Pavek and Daily,
1990) and correlating emotional holding patterns with Chinese five-phase
theory (Pavek, 1988a).~In 1992, Isaacs conducted a double-blind study
using Eeman screens, which confirmed polarity at the spine and arms (Isaacs,
1991). It is unclear at this time whether the biofield is electromagnetic
or some other presently unmeasured but potentially quantifiable medium.
It is popularly hypothesized that the biofield is a form of bioelectricity,
biomagnetism, or bioelectromagnetism.8 This may well be the case but has
yet to be established. Some researchers discount the possibility.9 Some
Chinese researchers have conducted experiments indicating that when wei
qi (the external biofield) is used in fa qi (healing), electro-magnetic
radiation in the infrared range is produced; others found indications
of infrasonic waves. However, both phenomena appear to be minor secondary
effects (Shen, 1988; Xin et al., 1988). Research base. Rigorous research
on biofield healing has been hindered by the belief, held by many, that
nothing more than a placebo effect is the operative factor. This belief
has affected funding, publishing, and status of researchers. Because funding
organizations and ~scientific communities believed that any effects obtained
were largely placebo effects, not real effects of biofields, research
has been considered pointless. Moreover, many researchers have been unwilling
to study biofield effects that they would otherwise be interested in,
because they fear being ostracized by other researchers. Publication of
research by the journals has been limited for similar reasons. Notwithstanding
these limitations, a number of studies have been implemented. In the United
States, there are more than 17 published studies on biofield therapeutics.
Published U.S. studies. Because no comprehensive database of studies on
biofield therapeutics exists, the following are considered to be only
a sampling. In two controlled studies on therapeutic touch, Krieger found
significant change in hemoglobin levels in hospitalized patients (Krieger,
1975, 1973). In a similar study, Wetzel found significant change in hematocrit
and hemoglobin levels of 48 subjects receiving reiki, and no significant
change with 10 controls (Wetzel, 1989).~Wirth found significant change
in the healing rate of full-thickness skin wounds in a carefully controlled,
double-blind study of therapeutic touch (Wirth, 1990), while Keller and
Bzdek found highly significant decreases in pain scores recorded on the
McGill-Melzak Pain Questionnaire by patients with tension headache in
a controlled study of therapeutic touch (Keller, 1993; Keller and Bzdek,
1986). Although Meehan found no significant difference on the Visual Analog
Scale and Pain Intensity Descriptor Form between postoperative patients
receiving therapeutic touch and controls, secondary analysis showed patients
receiving therapeutic touch waited longer before requesting analgesia
(Meehan, 1985, 1988). Similarly, Heidt found significant changes in anxiety
levels of hospitalized cardiovascular patients receiving therapeutic touch
versus controls as measured on the A-State Self-evaluation Questionnaire
(Heidt, 1979, 1981a; Spielberger et al., 1983). Quinn (1983) found similar
results in a study of therapeutic touch versus mimic therapeutic touch
without centering and intention to assist. In a replication study on patients
before and after open heart surgery, using therapeutic touch ~versus mimic
therapeutic touch and no-treatment groups, Quinn found no significant
differences between the groups. Yet changes occurred in the expected direction,
and there was a significant reduction in diastolic blood pressure among
the therapeutic touch group that was not seen in the no-treatment group
(Quinn, 1989). In another study of therapeutic touch versus mimic therapeutic
touch, Parkes showed no significant differences among elderly hospitalized
patients (Parkes, 1985). Collins (1983), Fedoruk (1984), and Ferguson
(1986) found significant relaxation effects of therapeutic touch with
various subjects in different studies, and Quinn (1992), in a pilot study
of four bereaved people, found significant reduction of suppressor T cells
in all four after therapeutic touch. Moreover, Kramer found significant
differences in stress reduction between treatment and control groups in
a study of therapeutic touch with hospitalized children (Kramer, 1990).
Other U.S. studies. A number of pilot and case studies in fruitful areas
have shown interesting results that are worthy of further investigation.
These studies were conducted ~without controls, usually because of the
severe limitations on funding. In four uncontrolled cases, Pavek found
that white cell decrease during chemotherapy reversed and rose significantly
after single SHEN therapy treatments at the thymus gland (Pavek, unpublished,
1984-85). In a pilot study on SHEN therapy and premenstrual syndrome,
Pavek noted significant long-term symptom relief and behavioral change
with 11 of 13 subjects (Pavek, unpublished, 1986). Beal, in an unpublished
study of 12 hospitalized major depressives, found no statistical difference
in time of release from the hospital between 6 subjects randomized to
receive SHEN therapy and 6 controls receiving sham SHEN therapy. However,
in analyzing both subject and counselor reports, Pavek found significant
change in dreaming, emotional expressiveness, and interpersonal contact
with subjects receiving SHEN therapy and much less change among controls
(Beal and Pavek, 1985). Other therapeutic touch research with promising
indications includes research on ~rehabilitation (Payne, 1989), helping
patients to rest (Heidt, 1991), mental patients (Hill and Oliver, 1993),
symptom control in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (Newshan,
1989), and severe burn patients (Pavek, unpublished observations). Promising
research with SHEN therapy includes research with occupational therapy
clients, third-trimester abdominal pain, reduction of pain during birthing
without pain medication, irritable bowel syndrome, posttraumatic stress
disorder, anorexia, bulimia, phobias, and chronic migraine. International
research. There has been considerable research on biofield therapeutics
in other countries. In China, more than 30 controlled studies on effects
of fa qi on both humans and animals were reported in the proceedings of
just one meeting, the First World Conference for the Academic Exchange
of Medical Qigong. At the same meeting, 32 studies were presented on effects
on health of qigong exercises that raise qi (Proceedings, 1988). ~In an
overview report, Daniel Benor has compiled data on 151 healing studies
from around the world (Benor, 1992). In many of these studies, mental
healing efforts were combined with the biofield processes. However, 61
were controlled, published studies of biofield healing effects without
the confounding factors of mental intent. These studies are shown in tables
4 and 5. Research Recommendations Promising clinical results. While technique,
focus, and range of treatments attempted vary considerably, a number of
results are common to all forms of the biofield process: • Acceleration
of wound healing. • Reduction of the pain of thermal burns and acceleration
of healing time. • Reduction of sunburn pain and coloration.~ • Reduction
of acute and chronic pain. • Reduction of anxiety. • Release of pent-up
grief. In addition, practitioners of some forms of the process report
consistently good results with • recurrent panic attacks; • premenstrual
syndrome; • posttraumatic stress disorder; • irritable bowel syndrome;
~ • nonbiological sexual dysfunction; • drug, alcohol, and codependence
recovery; • migraine; • anorexia and bulimia; and • third-trimester pregnancy
and birthing. Characterization of the biofield. That the biofield has
definable form, flux pattern, and polarities seems clear to practitioners
from the wealth of empirical evidence available. However, characterization
of the biofield is far from complete, and determining its nature is paramount
to its further development among the healing arts. Two hypotheses should
be tested: first, that the biofield is a field in physics other than an
~already known field, and, second, that the biofield is bioelectromagnetism.
One approach that would support the first hypothesis would be development
of a device (transducer) that would react with the biofield so as to exclude
the possibility of bioelectromagnetism. Research projects in China have
shown that application of the biofield affects lithium fluoride thermolumi-nesence
detectors, polarized light beams, Van de Graff generators, and silicone
crystal plates (Proceedings, 1988). These preliminary experiments suggest
possible approaches toward further characterization. Research design considerations.
The following should be considered in planning well-designed studies to
evaluate potential effects of biofields on health: • Mental healing techniques.
Since mental healing techniques are often mixed with biofield techniques,
care must be taken in all research designs to separate out the two factors.
Unless this is done, unclear results will prevent reasonable analysis.
• Sham treatments. Unlike placebo pills, biofield healing cannot be faked.
|