Interesting Question – No Touch Knockouts Versus No-Touch Healing

"The problem here is a very practical one. Research costs money, and the skilled practitioners of these methods (Therapeutic Touch) are busy working as doctors, not as researchers to a high enough level of competency in these methods for the research to be effective. Yet if some enterprising body were to give sympathetic and careful attention to our claims, then I feel we would discover that we have an undreamed of tool available to us which I'm sure can be further extended and refined."

Anthony Scott-Morley, D.Sc., Ph.D., M.D. (alt. med), of Dorset, England

Recently there has been an interesting discussion on one of the martial arts forums asking why a person who believes that some people have the power to do no-touch healing would dismiss another's ability to do no-touch knockouts.

In other words, if one believes people can heal others by externalizing their energy (call it Chi, Ki, or whatever) from a distance, why can’t that same form of externalized energy be used in combat and to knock people out?

Good question.

Now, I never considered this debate before, and call me a hard-ass, but I think both issues are nonsense. However, though I may tout the hard-line, I can see why people would have more faith and belief in no-touch healing than no-touch knockouts. In fact, there may even be some validity to their argument—possibly, but only the argument.

Now before you think I’m going soft and that I’m flip-flopping on my position, I am not. I still hold, and well forever hold until proven wrong, the position that neither method has any actual validity, and that there is absolutely no scientific information to indicate either works.

With that said though, I’m also aware of the “healing properties” of human touch and positive human interaction.

Of course I want to make the distinction clear. I believe touch, actual physical contact, can be therapeutic. In fact, I believe that touch is essential to the health and welfare of all human beings.

I also believe positive interaction among two or more individuals can also have many healing qualities. I mean, group therapy and “Twelve Step” programs are based on this belief. Clearly, if peer pressure can be blamed for causing one to engage in negative behavior, why can’t positive compassionate interaction help someone feel better about themselves and aid in their recovery?

Arguably, I guess the proponents of no touch healing can argue they provided the same benefits as group therapy, but on a on-to-one basis. Clearly, no-touch healing provides a healthy constructive interaction between practitioner and patient. Furthermore, treatment is designed to instill faith that one will get better and will feel better. This connection between mind and body has definite merit, and a positive outlook can do wonders when it comes to healing oneself.

With that said however, I don’t believe touch has the power to cure all ills. As therapeutic as touch may be, I don’t believe it can cure diseases such as cancer, like some proponents would suggest. Touch certainly can aid a person during their recovery, even ease their suffering, but it can’t cure them.

(For more information on the healing benefits of touch and studies relating to touch and healing I suggest going to Healing Touch International, Inc)

Of course this blog entry isn’t about actual touching to heal a person, it’s about no-touch healing.

I’m sure based on my opinion regarding the benefits of hands-on healing no one will be surprised when I say no-touch healing is a load of baloney. At least,it is in the way it is packaged and sold to the public. Sorry if being blatant offends someone, but its true. Quote all the studies you want, none of them prove its existence or even the possibility that there is some scientific evidence to support the faith people have in it.

Now, I’m not denying some people have benefited from such a treatment, but all that proves is the amazing power of the mind.

I forget which war this took place in, but a group of injured soldiers were once given sugar pills to relieve their pain instead of regular pain killers. Of course these soldiers weren’t told the pills were made of sugar. They were informed that these pills were the strongest pain reliever ever made, stronger than even morphine. Even so the pills had absolutely no medicinal properties a majority of the soldiers felt a reduction in their pain.

Now, we all know sugar won't decrease pain, and those soldiers that felt relief shouldn’t have felt any changes. However, they did. It worked because they believed what the doctors were telling them and had faith in the pills they were ingesting. Clearly, it was a case of mind over matter.

The same placebo effect can be account for many of the wonderful results attributed to no-touch healing. As Albert Schweitzer stated, “The greatest discovery of any generation is that human beings can alter their lives by altering the attitudes of their minds."

Now to be perfectly honest, I’m not very knowledgeable when it comes to the various forms of no-touch/faith healing methodologies that are out there. Basically, many of them sound the same to me, and most deal with spirituality more than science. Of course this link to spirituality isn’t such a surprise.

Many individuals believe in the power of prayer, and that God can heal them. In many cases, even when faced with eminent death, their spirituality is unwavering. I knew such an individual once who instead of taking the antibiotics his doctors prescribed waited for God to cure him. He prayed and his fellow Jehovahs prayed with him. They held hands to share energy, and although he got worse and worse, his faith remained absolute. The end result was that he died from an illness that could have been easily been cured with proper medical treatment. Basically, one could assert that his “faith” killed him.

Of course, that example is most probably why I have such a bias against the healing quality of faith on its own. That is why I’m adamant that without proof one should not extol the virtues of “faith healing” as a true method of healing anyone.

Yes, it’s a hard-line, but it's based on personal experience, and every thing I’ve ever read, heard from others in the medical profession, or seen on TV.

But I digress.

While I was reading the various posts debating no-touch healing versus no-touch knockouts, one particular method of healing was constantly referred to. That method is called Reiki.

Since Reiki seemed to be a major component of their discussion, I will address only that particular method in this essay, though I’m almost certain what I’m about to say applies to most other methods (magneto therapy, pranic healing color therapy, aroma therapy, music therapy, gems and stone therapy, etc).

Now I’ve heard of Reiki before, but really didn’t know enough about Reiki at the time this discussion was “heated” to make any fully informed comments., Now after several days of Internet research I think I can make a better, definitely more informed, opinion. And yes, the information presented here is just my opinion.

Before I start though, let me quote a description of Reiki I found on the International Center for Reiki Training website, (www.Reiki.org). Per their website they describe Reiki as:

Reiki is a Japanese technique for stress reduction and relaxation that also promotes healing. It is administered by "laying on hands" and is based on the idea that an unseen "life force energy" flows through us and is what causes us to be alive. If one's "life force energy" is low, then we are more likely to get sick or feel stress, and if it is high, we are more capable of being happy and healthy.
The word Reiki is made of two Japanese words - Rei which means "God's Wisdom or the Higher Power" and Ki which is "life force energy". So Reiki is actually "spiritually guided life force energy."

A treatment feels like a wonderful glowing radiance that flows through and around you. Reiki treats the whole person including body, emotions, mind and spirit creating many beneficial effects that include relaxation and feelings of peace, security and wellbeing. Many have reported miraculous results.

Reiki is a simple, natural and safe method of spiritual healing and self-improvement that everyone can use. It has been effective in helping virtually every known illness and malady and always creates a beneficial effect. It also works in conjunction with all other medical or therapeutic techniques to relieve side effects and promote recovery.

An amazingly simple technique to learn, the ability to use Reiki is not taught in the usual sense, but is transferred to the student during a Reiki class. This ability is passed on during an "attunement" given by a Reiki master and allows the student to tap into an unlimited supply of "life force energy" to improve one's health and enhance the quality of life.

Its use is not dependent on one's intellectual capacity or spiritual development and therefore is available to everyone. It has been successfully taught to thousands of people of all ages and backgrounds.

While Reiki is spiritual in nature, it is not a religion. It has no dogma, and there is nothing you must believe in order to learn and use Reiki. In fact, Reiki is not dependent on belief at all and will work whether you believe in it or not. Because Reiki comes from God, many people find that using Reiki puts them more in touch with the experience of their religion rather than having only an intellectual concept of it.

While Reiki is not a religion, it is still important to live and act in a way that promotes harmony with others. Dr. Mikao Usui, the founder of the Reiki system of natural healing, recommended that one practice certain simple ethical ideals to promote peace and harmony, which are nearly universal across all cultures.

Based on this above description I can certainly see why some people would believe in the value of such a healing method. However, while they claim to have no “dogma,” it certainly sounds like they do. Clearly, they are stating their opinions and ideas, which are founded on faith, in an authoritative manner (that’s the definition of dogma).

This description also claims believing in Reiki isn’t necessary in order to benefit from it. However, they fail to offer any verifiable proof of that assertion. They simply refer to the spiritual nature of Reiki to explain why it works. What if I’m not spiritual by nature? What if I don’t believe Reiki comes from God?

Furthermore, they assert that Reiki has been beneficial in “helping virtually every known illness and malady.” If this statement is true, where are the statistics, the scientific data showing cause and effect. In addition, what is the definition of “helpful?” I need more than a few testimonials by individuals who believe Reiki helped them before I can believe this stuff actually has merit.

Lets face it, you can find and elicit testimonials regarding just about any product or idea out there. The diet industry is one such example of this. You know the ads: I used the cheesecake diet and lost ten pounds in one week, so can you!

Granted, most websites that discuss Reiki give the disclaimer that Reiki should not be used as a sole means to cure anything. In fact, many websites encourage individuals to seek professional medical advice in addition to Reiki treatment.

I respect this disclaimer a lot, but it goes a long way to proving my point. If one is seeking professional medical treatment at the same time they do Reiki, how could they possibly tell which method is actually more effective?

For example, I’ve suffered chronic neck pain for over ten years. I’ve tried everything short of surgery to ease the pain and get some relief. Nothing seemed to work, and trust me I wanted to believe something would.

Well, several months ago my doctor finally prescribed a painkiller that I have to take daily, but which takes several weeks before becoming fully effective. Let's assume I would have gone for Reiki treatments during those weeks; would I now believe the Reiki made me feel better, or it was the medicine? Or was it a combination of the two?

Using the same logic as those that propagate Reiki, maybe the real reason I feel better now isn’t due to the pills. Maybe it is actually due to my new pillow, the fact I cut my hair really short and lessened the weight of my head, or maybe it was just the Twinkies I ingested. Sorry if that sounds antagonistic or I come off sounding like a jerk, but what if?

That’s the problem with this debate; there is a lack of proof, a lack of hard evidence to confirm or at least legitimize their claims. Most testimonials they present as fact are only based on the belief this works, not scientific study or serious long-term investigation.

Like I said I’m no expert on Reiki, and have no first hand experience regarding how this method is employed. Based on what I’ve read this treatment is either hands-on (light touch), no-touch, or a combination of both.

In either case, I discovered that there appears to be a direct correlation between Reiki and acupuncture/acupressure. Or in other words, many of the points used in Reiki to “transfer energy” are the same used in acupuncture, Shiatsu, and various other forms of massage.

I’m sure this correlation is no accident or fluke either, though I could hardly find any evidence of such a link on most Reiki websites. The topic is debated on some forums discussing Reiki though.

Now, I’m aware that acupuncture as a healing method also has its detractors and that explaining why it works can also border the mystical realm. However, I have lot more faith in acupuncture/acupressure than anything involving no-touch methodologies. At least with acupuncture there have been some major scientific studies to investigate why it works.

The flaw with the theory of Reiki, and other similar methods, is the spiritual component, a component that can’t be proven. This component is based solely on FAITH.

Any healing method that claims to transfer/channel universal life force needs to be scrutinized. What is this “universal life force?” Is there any proof such a thing exists? Are they referring to my aura, the radiation I naturally emit, heat transfer, or something else.

This claim is very similar to those who claim to have the power to knock someone out with out touching them. No-touch knockout proponents clearly state that they transfer and use life force (Chi) to knock people out. That is their assertion at least.

Of course, there are major differences between proponents of no-touch knockouts and no-touch healing methods such as Reiki. These differences mainly have to due with how both methods are taught, and that no-knock practitioners don’t claim their abilities will work on everyone, especially skeptics.

Since I have already discussed the later in previous posts, I’ll focus my attention on the differences each system has when it comes to learning and acquiring these skills.

According to the International Center for Reiki Training website, they claim learning to do Reiki is extremely simple, and anyone regardless of their intellect can do it. Per their website:

An amazingly simple technique to learn, the ability to use Reiki is not taught in the usual sense, but is transferred to the student during a Reiki class. This ability is passed on during an "attunement" given by a Reiki master and allows the student to tap into an unlimited supply of "life force energy" to improve one's health and enhance the quality of life.

Its use is not dependent on one's intellectual capacity or spiritual development and therefore is available to everyone. It has been successfully taught to thousands of people of all ages and backgrounds.

Now I had no idea what could possibly be giving during “attunement” but according to Wikipedia:

The Reiki attunement process is an awareness of self-empowerment usually involving initiation, spiritual ceremony and /or meditation with a specific purpose and intent to connect to the Universal Energy Source. Following and coming to understand this process is how one becomes a Reiki Healer. Being attuned to Reiki is purported to give one the ability to easily access the Reiki energy (Universal Life Force) for the purpose of healing a person or situation by realigning that person or situation's energy. Many believe that only a Reiki Master can give Reiki Attunements.

When the attunement is given, depending on the type of attunement, Reiki Symbols are placed into your Crown, Heart, and/or Palm Chakras. During the attunement, Chakras are opened and cleared. Reiki symbols are used and there is transference of Reiki energy during the attunement. Central to this process is the establishment of a connection with the source of Reiki.

Now I’m not sure what all of the above means, sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me, but it is certainly pretty complicated. I would have to believe it would take more than a weekend class to obtain such skills, even if that skill was on a beginner’s level.

Of course, the assertion that obtaining Reiki skills is easy is directly contrary to what no-touch knockout proponents say. In fact, learning to do no-touch knockouts, learning to focus one’s internal power and externalizing it is suppose to take years of arduous painstaking practice, and well as personal insight.

While I have been unable to find any specific information stating how practitioners of no-touch knockouts transmit their knowledge, I would assume it has to be akin to techniques taught to develop and build up one's Chi (internal power).

Of course whether one system is easy to learn and the other isn’t really isn’t important to the topic. That topic is why one would believe one method is real and the other is not. However, it shows a definite contrast in the average person’s ability to master something such as learning to externalize and channel energy.

From everything I’ve seen and read regarding both methods my opinion is you either believe in both, or neither. You can’t have it both ways.

In other words, if it is the realm of possibility to externalize energy at all, why is this ability only limited to good not evil?

The answer of course is more of an issue of morality than science. It is mush easier to accept something as fact when it is for the greater good, than when it is evil in nature. Fighting is, after all, considered evil.

In addition, a lot more people have been exposed to and accepted alternative methods of healing than have practiced martial arts, or been exposed to practitioners that claim to be able to do no-touch knockouts.

Whether no-touch healing works or not, I can’t say for certain. My opinion is that is does not and I wouldn’t trust these methods if I were ill. However, if they work for others, that’s great.

That of course is also my opinion when I listen to people who adamantly say they have been knocked out by a no-touch knockout, or claim to have felt something unexplainable during an attempted no-touch knockout.

My final thought on this topic is simple; believe what you will, just don’t tell me there’s proof when there is none. Don’t try and convert me. Let me enjoy my skepticism, until I’m proven wrong. I’ll be the first to admit my mistake when I see the real proof.

Lastly, don’t try to tell me one exists and the other doesn’t. Either accept both or keep quiet. After all you’re talking about the same abilities, used for different purposes.



***** Please note: I am not clear if Reiki is a no-touch method of healing, or if some practitioners just elect to use Reiki in a no-touch manner. Photos on the Internet showing Reiki practitioners clearly depict some do make physical contact and others do not.

My opinion on the effectiveness, or I should say lack of effectiveness clearly lies on the practitioners who practice no-touch versions of this method.

Since I believe Reiki is akin to acupuncture/acupressure those that touch are employing a method that has more validity, since as I said numerous times touch is beneficial to one’s overall all physical and mental health.