Evidence For The Effectiveness of Spiritual Healing

Evidence for the effectiveness of spiritual healing
Jonas and Crawford describe at least 2,200 published reports on spiritual healing,
prayer, energy medicine, mental intention effects, and distant healing intentionality 11.
Many have poor methodology, however.
Anecdotally, healers say that it is unusual for people who have received several
sessions of healing, not to derive some benefit, either in mind, body or spirit. Indeed, the
NFSH Healing Trust writes: It is unusual for healing not to be helpful in some way.
A few people experience an immediate effect. For example, people have felt depression
lift or chronic pain disappear after the first healing session. However, a minority have no
apparent benefit from healing. Possibly some of these people, having an investment in
remaining ill, are reluctant to give up the sick role.
Audit evidence from the Positive Care Programme (www.positivecareprogramme.com)
An audit of people who are pro complementary therapies, but not necessarily pro healing
- has demonstrated:
1
87% (92/106) strongly agreed or agreed that healing had helped them
2
12% (13/106) were not sure (Of these, the majority had only had 1 or 2
sessions)
3
1 person disagreed
Dan Benor was the first to look at healing seriously as a research subject. He reviewed 155
controlled studies12 using a wide range of experimental subjects (enzymes, microorganisms, cells, plants, animals and humans). Over half produced statistically
significant results supporting the healing effect. However his review demonstrated a
dearth of rigorous, controlled studies in human illness.
There have been two reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of healing in
humans. In each, approximately half the trials demonstrated statistically significant
effects compared to controls:
7
1
Neil Abbotts review was of 22 published papers 13 - 10 papers demonstrated a
significant effect of healing.
2
Astin, Harkness and Ernsts review was of 23 trials which involved 2,774 patients.
14 - 13 (57%) studies yielded statistically significant treatment effects; 9 demonstrated no
effect over controls and 1 showed a negative effect.
Many of the trials had poor methodology or trial design, however, including small sample
sizes and inadequate reporting.
An RCT of the effect of spiritual healing on chronic pain 15 did not demonstrate
statistically significant reduction in pain (which was the primary endpoint). It did show
large, non-specific effects and psychological benefits which were significantly different
compared to the controls. The trial was criticised 16 , however, on a number of points, but
especially for the design which assumed a very large effect size, which was considered
inappropriate for chronic pain. The non-specific effects reported included changes in
pain and unusual sensations (such as seeing colours / light). These non-specific effects
were dismissed as being part of the folklore of healing.
To avoid invalid evaluation in the investigation of spiritual healing, research methods
need to take account of the aim of healing not only to relieve symptoms and restore
wellness but to help individuals in a process of self healing within a holistic view of
health. Reductionist research methods usually do not investigate this. For example, a
lady said about her healing session:
When X (the healer) put her hand on my back, I thought about something bad
that had happened to me in the past. (I hadnt been thinking about it and it
surprised me that I suddenly thought about it) But I just had a realisation that this
was not part of me anymore, I could let it go. I need to move on.
She had attended for healing to help her back pain. Her non-specific effect from the
healing would not have been noted in a trial looking at pain reduction.
There are a number of methodological challenges to conducting randomised, controlled
trials17 to investigate the effectiveness of spiritual healing.
Firstly, in the sampling, there are problems with:
Generalisability Since conventional medical care is generally separate from the delivery
of healing, patients recruited into a trial may differ from typical patients who attend for
healing, for example, in their belief systems or coping mechanisms and this might affect
treatment outcomes.
Therapeutic Expectation If there is expectation of therapeutic gain because of a belief
in the benefit of healing, this might lead to bias of results in trials which are not blinded.
8
Wide range of symptoms People who attend for healing often do so not because they
have a specific disease but because, for example, they feel tired or lack energy.
Therefore a trial about the effectiveness of healing based on a specific disease may not
have relevance.

Evidence For The Effectiveness of Spiritual Healing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence For The Effectiveness of Spiritual Healing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence For The Effectiveness of Spiritual Healing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence for the effectiveness of spiritual healing

You might also like