Recently, I read an article that discussed the differences between the energy healing practices of Reiki and Pranic Healing and concluded that Pranic Healing is a better practice of the two.
From the article, it seemed like the author was trained in Pranic Healing but also had sufficient knowledge about Reiki. It also felt like the author was biased and wanted to put forth the message that Pranic Healing is the better of the two modalities.
The core argument presented in favour of Pranic Healing was –
Reiki is taught differently by different teachers, depending on the lineage they are part of plus the personal expertise and experience they bring to their teaching, whereas Pranic Healing follows a standard format and all teachers teach it the same way (exactly the way their Grandmaster taught). The expertise of individual teachers is secondary. The point being made was that this makes Pranic Healing more scientific and Reiki less scientific.
I am not an expert in science. So, I checked with experts in conventional science if the point presented in the article is valid from a scientific perspective. It was immediately dismissed. They said it doesn’t matter if individual teachers teach whatever each wants to or if a group of people follow the exact teachings of one particular teacher. Neither approach makes it ‘scientific.’
If you want to label a practice ‘scientific,’ it must be based on universal scientific principles – how rigorously a practice has been tested, its effects documented, and if there is a worldwide standard for its application. If you board an aircraft, there is no doubt anywhere in the world about its ability to take off and fly. You cannot get into one and not be sure about its capacity to do its job. Or, you must be able to ascertain with accuracy the extent to which a specific mechanism or practice could work. That’s how thorough research must be in order for something to be pronounced ‘standardized and scientific.’
Also, one person’s testing and documentation are not sufficient. Research efforts must be reproducible across the world and must meet several parameters before a practice can be termed ‘scientific’ in the true sense.
I was happy to know that the argument didn’t carry weight because I felt it is unfair to compare healing practices when the reasoning itself is flawed.
Personally, I feel it is best that energy healers not compare healing practices. Or at least not make casual statements about other therapies without knowing in depth about how a practice works. Each therapy is unique in its own way.
Can fruits be better than vegetables? It doesn’t make sense to compare them because they each meet different needs.
Secondly, what energy healers mean by ‘scientific’ is radically different from the principles that conventional science is based on. Unless we can achieve a deeper understanding of ‘scientific’ and apply our practices based on that understanding, it may be best not to bring science into the equation at all. Saying one energy healing practice is more scientific than another is not accurate and can even be misleading.
These practices are gifts that help to bring wellness, peace, love, light and higher consciousness to the world. The mechanism of their working can be mysterious and not necessarily logical. Maybe a day will come when the value offered by such intuitive practices will meet the value offered by conventional science and together they will bring enhanced benefit. Until then, let’s enjoy the mystery. Let’s use these gifts to complement the gifts offered by conventional science and make the world a happier place!