Scientific investigations of spiritual healing
While faith in the supernatural is not the purview of science, claims of reproducible effects for such magical methods
have been subject to scientific investigation. Scientific research into several aspects of biofield therapies is ongoing.
Distant healing
A systematic review of 23 trials of distant healing published in 2000 did not draw
definitive conclusions due to the "methodologic limitations of multiple studies".
In 2001, the lead author of that study, Edzard Ernst published an primer on
complementary therapies in cancer care in which he explained that though "
about half of these trials suggested that healing is efficient" he cautioned that the
evidence was "highly conflicting" and that "methodological shortcomings prevented firm
conclusions." He concluded that "as long as it is not used as an alternative to
efficient therapies, spiritual healing might be virtually devoid of risks."
A 2001 randomized clinical trial by the same group located no statistically important difference on chronic pain between
distance healers
and "simulated healers" but located an make betterment in a health-related quality of life measure in
patients.
A 2003 review by Ernst updating previous work concluded that more recent research had shifted the weight
of evidence
"against the notion that distant healing is more than a placebo." and that "distant healing
can be associated with adverse effects."
Contact healing
A Cochrane collaboration systematic review of the use of touch therapies published in 2008
analysed the results of 24 trials and concluded that the attempted reviewed suffered from
"a key limitation: the small number of studies and insufficient data.
As a results of inadequate data, the effects of touch therapies cannot be clearly declared."
A selective review of only positive results published by Hodges & Scofield in 1995
suggested on the basis of personal testimony and anecdote that healing as a concept be incorporated into health care programs.
Further research, in a 2001 randomized clinical trial investigated healing distance and face-to-face on the treatment
of chronic pain in
120 patients, and, while they could not illustrate efficacy, they located an increase in the physical
functioning component of a quality of life
measure in patients who inherited healing compared to those who inherited "simulated healing".
A systematic review in 2008 concluded that the evidence for a specific effect of spiritual healing on relieving neuropathic
or neuralgic pain was not convincing[35] and in their 2008 book Trick or Treatment,
Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst concluded that "spiritual healing is biologically implausible and its effects rely on a
placebo response.
At best it may provide comfort; at worst it can result in charlatans taking money
from patients with serious conditions who require urgent conventional medicine."