Biofield therapies (BT), like Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, suggest that practitioners can influence biological processes or promote healing by manipulating an energy field, often without physical contact. Some studies have reported positive effects, including reduced pain and anxiety, enhanced immune responses, and changes in cancer-related biomarkers.
Despite these promising findings, skepticism persists within the scientific community, largely due to the lack of a clear mechanism explaining how BT could work. The placebo effect is often raised as a potential explanation for the positive benefits, particularly in human studies. This is why it can be useful to avoid human subject research and instead do more controlled studies with cell cultures or animal models, where the placebo effect is not relevant.
Interestingly, very little research has focused on what happens physiologically within the BT practitioner during a healing session. Could the practitioner’s own body or mind provide clues about how this process works?
To address these gaps, IONS Scientist Arnaud Delorme, PhD, worked with the MD Anderson Cancer Center—ranked as the nation’s top cancer care institution—to design and launch a new study to examine whether a BT method can influence cancer cells in a controlled laboratory setting. We also wanted to answer the question: are measurable physiological changes occurring in the BT practitioner during these sessions? And do the practitioner’s physiology and the cells interact in any way?
How We Did the Study
The participant was a 71-year-old expert in a healing technique called the Bengston Energy Healing Method. We also included a “sham” participant who mimicked the practitioner’s actions without the actual healing intent, serving as a control.
The practitioner performed 60 sessions involving the BT treatment aimed at pancreatic cancer cells. The session alternated between treatment phases and rest periods, with treatments performed about 12 inches from the cells. The setup compared live cancer cells against controls (dead cells or no cells) during treatment and non-treatment phases, all under double-blind conditions.
We measured changes in the cells that would be critical for cancer growth and spread, including: (1) two proteins (tubulin and β-actin) in the cytoskeleton, or internal scaffolding and transport system of cells; and (2) calcium uptake, which is important for cell growth, division, energy, and more. We also measured the invasiveness of the cancer cells, to see if the intervention reduced their ability to spread.
To investigate the practitioner, we measured their brain activity (with electroencephalography (EEG)) and heart activity (measured by electrocardiography (ECG) and heart rate variability (HRV)).
Lastly, we also explored potential relationships between the practitioner’s physiological changes and cell responses.
What Did We Find…
…in the Practitioner Results?
During BT treatment versus baseline, the practitioner’s brainwave patterns and parasympathetic nervous system arousal (the “rest-and-digest” response as measured by HRV) indicated decreased relaxation and increased focus during treatment, aligning with the mental engagement required for BT healing.
The practitioner’s brain activity – specifically beta and gamma frequencies associated with attention and cognition – and parasympathetic nervous system arousal were different when treating live cancer cells versus control conditions (dead or no cells), but not between BT treatment versus baseline, hinting that the brain’s response to live cells is subtle but distinct. It might be possible that the practitioner’s physiological state subconsciously responds to the presence of live cells, making them subtly more alert.
However, there was no interaction between the treatment and cell type, or in other words, no special physiological differences in the practitioner when treating cancer cells with BT.
…in the Cell Results?
Among the three cell markers studied, only calcium showed significant differences between the BT and sham treatments. Although calcium levels increased in both groups over time, the increase was smaller in the BT-treated cells. This could hint at a potential slowing of certain cellular activities linked to cancer progression. Possibly relatedly, BT treatment significantly reduced the invasiveness of pancreatic cancer cells compared to sham treatments. This is consistent with previous findings showing that BT may influence cancer cell behavior in measurable ways.
…in the Relationship between Practitioner and Cell Results?
When exploring potential relationships between the practitioner’s physiological changes and cell responses, we found a two-way relationship. Tubulin, one of the proteins of the cell’s cytoskeleton, was significantly associated with brain activity in certain frequency ranges, specifically beta and gamma. This means that changes in tubulin levels could somehow be linked to shifts in the practitioner’s brainwave patterns. Interestingly, the opposite was not true – brain activity did not seem to be associated with tubulin. However, we did find that brainwave activity across all frequency bands appeared to influence calcium levels in cells. Additionally, the reverse was not observed here – calcium changes did not appear to affect brain activity.
We found no links between heart function and cell markers.
What Can We Take Away from this Study?
This study adds an intriguing layer to our understanding of biofield therapies. While these methods remain scientifically mysterious and often debated, the results here suggest that BT could influence cellular behavior in measurable ways. Specifically, the findings showed that calcium uptake, a process critical for cellular health and cancer progression, was altered and the invasiveness of cancer cells was reduced, hinting at a potential impact on cancer cell behavior.
On the practitioner side, physiological changes—such as shifts in brain activity and heart rate variability—indicated a focused, engaged state during treatment. The discovery of a two-way relationship between the practitioner’s brainwave activity and cell markers is especially exciting and highlights a possible mind-body-cell connection worth further exploration. In simpler terms, it’s a fascinating peek into how deeply interconnected the brain and body might be, even down to the cellular level!
While these findings are promising, they also underscore the need for more rigorous studies to unravel the underlying mechanisms and rule out alternative explanations. This research opens the door to further studies on mind-body connections and their potential implications for health and healing— there’s still a lot to uncover. For now, this study reminds us of the importance of curiosity and open-mindedness when exploring uncharted scientific territory.
Read more about this study and the results in the paper “Examining the effects of biofield therapy through simultaneous assessment of electrophysiological and cellular outcomes” published in Scientific Reports.
