A few days ago, I came across a Reiki meta-analysis that was published last year. A meta analysis is a very large study that compiles other studies, in this case randomized controlled trials, 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.
Note: I may come back to this in the future to keep refining information and thoughts, and to simplify it.
In the meantime, my first impressions: 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 people with chronic issues (including high stress) who were not hospitalized. There weren't enough people in those study groups to generate reliable statistics for cancer vs surgery, but when all of them were looked at in one go, the statistics could be tabulated. The studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) looking at reiki and quality of life.
My challenges to the study 💬
- Only 2 of the reiki studies in the meta analysis had a placebo group: a group of people receiving fake reiki, to measure the difference between someone sitting with them 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 with no holistic help.
- The people giving Reiki as part of these RCTs 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. Different tools and techniques are given in each level, as well. For example, in the Reiki that I now practice, Level 3 can start with guided meditations that are quite soothing, as well as hands-on-reiki.
- The reports were self-assessments; 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. And self-assessments may be the standard way of measuring QOL. It tells you how the person feels. I have also seen preliminary studies where the parameters were biological markers.
What I found interesting 📊
- Even if the results are potentially a placebo, the observed effect was associated with 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. The significant effect was seen after they had received eight reiki sessions.
- Giving Reiki for brief 20 minute sessions, also had a beneficial effect. These sessions were, for the most part, on general population, with limited QOL, but not necessarily hospital patients. Potentially less sick, tbd.
- What I found confusing: 30 minutes did not show an effect. The 40 and 45 minute reiki groups were pooled and gave inconsistent results; I haven't looked at what type of patients were included in all the RCTs, or how many sessions they received. If the length and number of sessions vary, as well as the participants (surgical vs cancer vs arthritis vs high stress) - apples and oranges. One of the 30 minute RCTs was on cancer patients, and it did not show an effect vs placebo; but 20 minutes of Reiki on general population did show an effect. 📊 My take was 30 minutes of reiki may not move the needle with cancer patients, as the stress and the experience goes far beyond everyday stress. See note below, on the two RCT’s with a placebo. 20 minutes on (very) stressed paramedics and hospital is another matter etc. Both are important though. There weren’t enough people in the patient groups to cut the stats that way, and by time received. I am hypothesizing here because the results beg the question,
Aside - I often asked for studies that exceeded my budget in the corporate world and maybe I am doing the same here lol. In terms of wish lists.
My Take on This 🕯️
The quality of life scores and improvements for a single 20 minute session, for 60 minute sessions, and for groups with 8 sessions were statistically significant. The overall effects of reiki were modest, but statistically significant (Standard Mean Difference of 0.28, so a small effect). For the single 20 minute, and 8 session reiki groups, the stats were somewhat better - SMD 0.54 and SMD 0.50 respectively. But the studies designs were all different which makes it a bit messy. That is because the studies (RCTs) were launched independently, and aggregated later, as is the case with meta-analysis.
Still the 0.28 effect = something. but not huge. I am not a statistician, but my understanding after a google search is that an SMD of 0.2 is small, one of 0.5 is a moderate visible effect, and 0.8 is high. Reiki is gentle, and non invasive, and often no touch - less of a risk of side effects. That can be a plus, even with a modest effect.
> However, based on the study parameters in this meta-analysis, 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 studies that were reviewed in this analysis. This isn't the fault of the people who published the meta-analysis, but it does reflect that the source material was not where it needed to be.
I go into the two RCT's that did include a placebo (fake reiki) below. One of these studies showed a benefit to reiki vs fake reiki, the other did not. I want to look at the data for the individual RCTs.
Reiki vs Placebo - the 2 RCT’s (out of 11) 📊
Both of these RCTs (with a placebo) were on cancer patients. Let’s start with the RCT that did show a benefit with Reiki vs placebo (fake reiki). It had 8, one hour sessions, over four weeks, but it also had losses in the placebo group right before the study began. That may skew the results, because the placebo group is smaller.
That can also distort the statistical results (SMDs) because the sicker participants were not in the placebo group, but they were in the reiki group. This might skew it against reiki. The researchers took measures to account for both of these factors in the statistical analysis - I can't say more as I am not an expert. The one quality of life marker where Reiki did not do better than placebo was on psychological markers; it was interesting to see that in this particular RCT. It was one of five markers (four + general QoL).
The other RCT, the one that didn’t show a statistically significant effect for reiki vs fake reiki (placebo) had four, 30 minute sessions, over four weeks. So 30 minutes a week. I read the abstract for this study; the full version is for sale and I have not purchased it yet, but might read it later. The meta-analysis has all the references to individual RCTs; if you want to look at this yourself.
👉🏻 In terms of reiki dose, the first RCT had 2 hours a week, the other 2 hours a month. The reiki master in me wants to say that the time difference played a part in that. And that is logical to me. It would be easy to look only at the 30 minute RCT that included a placebo group, and to discard reiki. Ot to look at the non-placebo trials and tout the 20 minute sessions as winners. That stress relief benefit can be explained by mindfulness, and without a real placebo or a comparison group, it’s hard to say it’s the reiki, etc. This is one of the reasons why having objectivity matters, on both sides.
Tentatively though, I’d say 2 hours of reiki a week does help with QOL but not with psychological factors, which can be more encompassing ✨✨ It is quite an investment, though.
Ideally Reiki would be measured against:
- Control group: no holistic or mind-body-spirit complements.
- Placebo: something simulating a reiki session.
- Other options: meditation, art therapy, tai chi, acupuncture, yoga, etc. Though personal preference is important, the person 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. There are lots of options.
Variety makes stress relief fun, and maybe more enjoyable, overall.
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 blog post, and please share! I tend to give myself reiki everyday, for 15 minutes. Maybe a long session once a week.
Those of us who practice reiki believe in reiki. It's important to remember that we can be wrong about our beliefs; that is why they are beliefs, not facts. It's important to break down what we believe, to make a note of what we experience, and to interpret that experience separately. Funny enough, I learned that in psychic development class - make a note of your impressions, and then make a separate note of your interpretation. Interpretation and assumption is where we often go wrong. There are also people who are skeptical about reiki - and that is ok. I do want to point out that assuming it does not exist is also a bias, and it can influence how we interpret the data. Both sides, belief and non belief are personal filters. Below are my educational filters:
In my previous work life, I spent a lot of time looking at data. Be it product stats, market research or profit and loss statements. I am not a scientist; I worked in consumer healthcare marketing and product development. When it comes to business, the numbers help us spot potholes, and keep us from choosing a path that doesn’t do well, but overall direction was based on vision (an MBA tip). In terms of avoiding potholes, if the budget allowed for 30 mins per week with cancer patients, I am thinking you might skip that and offer something else (group guided imagery, etc). That is my MBA self, looking at the data - not a science mind. Thinking of the practical application of complementary therapies.
When it comes to medical care though, science is first. Energy healing and reiki are always complementary to conventional medicine, not alternative.
Let me know your thoughts.
Reiki hugs,
Regina
>> I zoomed in on the 2 RCTs with placebo, not sure it’s worth my time looking at all the others to break down and analyze the noise. I might buy the 2nd RCT someday, though..
>> Reiki is complementary to medical care, not alternative. It is not a treatment for cancer; it is not intended to delay or replace conventional medical care. Have a look at the Cancer Support tab for more on energy healing.
Image: canva.com
jpg low res