The Reiki Meta Analysis
A few days ago, I came across a Reiki meta-analysis that was published last year. A meta analysis is a large study that compiles other studies, and aggregates all of their data. As I have mentioned before, one of the challenging things about holistic studies, and clinical studies in general, is making sure that they accurately measure what they intend to measure. I will come back to this post in the future to keep updating information and thoughts.
In the meantime, here is an overview of my thoughts on this: Effects of Reiki therapy on quality of life: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Syst Rev. 2025 Mar 27;14(1):72.
The participants in these studies were cancer patients, surgical patients and patients with chronic issues. There weren't enough people in any of those study groups to generate statistics for cancer vs surgery, but when all of them were looked at in one go, the statistics could be tabulated. The studies were done in hospitals, on quality of life.
My challenges to the study 💬
- Only 2 of the reiki studies in the meta analysis had a placebo group, basically a group of people receiving fake reiki, to measure the difference between someone sitting with a patient and pretending to give reiki, and someone giving them real reiki. The other nine studies had a group of people receiving reiki, with no fake reiki to compare against. Those had a control: people that received no holistic help.
- The people giving Reiki as part of these studies did not have the same profile. This introduces variability to the study. So for example, some were nurses, some were Reiki teachers, some were Level 1 reiki practitioners. In theory, a Reiki Master (Level 3) would have more reiki flowing through them, and in a different quality, than Level 1.
- The reports were self-assessments, so basically, the recipient was asked about their quality of life before and after. This is common but I think in general, it might be more subjective, even if there are best practices to filter that information out. I have seen other preliminary studies where the parameters were actual biological markers.
What I found interesting:
- Even if the results are potentially a placebo, the observed effect was linked to the duration and frequency of sessions. So for example: giving people one-hour sessions, twice a week, for four weeks had a measurable effect on the study participants: cancer patients, surgery patients, and people who were in hospital for chronic conditions. The statistically significant effect was seen after they received 8 sessions.
- Giving Reiki for brief 20 minute sessions, also had an effect.
- Giving 40 minutes of Reiki, and repeating that, did not perform as well, but this could be because the studies that measured 40 minute sessions weren't as robust, or the studies weren't compatible etc.
My Take on This
The quality of life scores and improvements for a single 20 minute session, and for eight, bi-weekly 60 minute sessions were statistically significant. The overall effects were modest, but statistically significant (Standard Mean Difference of 0.28, so a small effect). For the 20 minute, and 8 biweekly reiki groups, the stats were somewhat better - SMD 0.50 and SMD 0.54 respectively. But the studies designs were all different, lots of variability, which makes it a bit messy. That is likely because the studies were launched independently, and aggregated later, as is the case with meta-analysis. Still the 0.28 effect = interesting.
However, the strength of the observed effects could be due to placebo, or due to reiki, as no fake reiki groups were included in 9 of the 11 the studies that were in reviewed in this analysis. This isn't the fault of the people published the meta-analysis, but it does reflect that the source material was not where it needed to be, to be clear.
Ideally the complementary therapy would be measured against:
- Control, so no holistic or mind-body-spirit complements
- Placebo: something simulating a reiki sessions
- Other complementary therapies, like meditation, tai chi, acupuncture, etc. Though personal preference is also important, enjoying it.
Reiki is helpful as it's non invasive and the person can just lie down and receive reiki, or give themselves reiki, while listening to music. That can be part of the experience too. From what I've seen, tai chi and yoga can be effective but mobility can also be an issue.
Self-Reiki and Meditation💗
I personally, would love to see self-reiki studied. So not the placebo and/or potential benefit of receiving reiki, but the placebo and/or potential benefit of giving yourself Reiki. I find self-reiki to be similar to mindfulness meditations in that we sit down, relax, observe our breath and bring our attention to different parts of the body.
From a cost perspective (for hospitals), teaching Reiki 1 and having a practitioner take patients through a daily class, where 30 people can sit and give themselves reiki, instead of just one receiving it - also great.
In the meantime, here is a self-love meditation. I might do more 20 minute meditations and put them on my Youtube channel.
I hope you enjoy this post, and please share. If in doubt, give reiki for 20 minutes as a one-off when the person receiving it really needs it, or needs company, or give Reiki for 60 minutes, twice a week, for at least four weeks =) And give yourself reiki, twice weekly too!
Reiki hugs,
Regina
>> Reiki is complementary to medical care, not alternative. It is not a treatment for cancer. Read my books for my approach.
