massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Skeptical about Energy Work
Folks -
There previously was a discussion on this site in which a skeptical attitude toward energy work was being discussed, but that discussion eventually got deleted. The reason seems to be that it was judged not to belong in the location where it was taking place, which was inside one of the energy work groups.
I was the person who introduced the skepticism to the discussion. Some people did not appreciate that, but others did. Given how many participants there are on this site, and how many threads and groups are dedicated to discussing energy work with no skepticism, I thought maybe it was time to open a discussion where such skepticism is invited and welcomed.
I look forward to seeing how this discussion might develop. Is there interest?
-CM
There previously was a discussion on this site in which a skeptical attitude toward energy work was being discussed, but that discussion eventually got deleted. The reason seems to be that it was judged not to belong in the location where it was taking place, which was inside one of the energy work groups.
I was the person who introduced the skepticism to the discussion. Some people did not appreciate that, but others did. Given how many participants there are on this site, and how many threads and groups are dedicated to discussing energy work with no skepticism, I thought maybe it was time to open a discussion where such skepticism is invited and welcomed.
I look forward to seeing how this discussion might develop. Is there interest?
-CM
Views: 3109
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on
-
Robyn, those were some observations that really hit home. Reflexology did not interest me after a 'treatment' and learning some of it's claims regarding diagnosing and treating illness. Then one day I was exposed to a reflexology distance learning DVD another therapist had on in the background when I visited her. First I noticed several manipulation techniques that I originally learned from Rolfers and had been using with success, particularly on the front arch. Next thing they are showing some techniques I was using but with a variation in application that adapted it to use for other issues. I also learned some new applications. It was a WOW moment in which I found new respect for reflexology, and a moment to reflect on why I dismissed Reflexology (overly skeptic) I realized that nothing should be dismissed so quickly without taking the time to learn what it really is about. Reflexology is a prime example of what some call a sham because of claims made by some practitioners that cannot be backed up, but in reality offers great benefit to a client if properly applied. I will never believe that all illness can be diagnosed by reflexology, however the manipulation techniques can be put to good practice, and it probably is possible to make an assessment regarding some illness by foot condition, just as physicians in England can diagnose bleeding ulcers by observing your fingernails.
Robin Byler Thomas said:Yea, me too Bert; interesting observations though. I'm skeptical about most new things, believe it or not Christopher, but will try them on, let them marinate for a while and see what happens. When learning Cranial Sacral for the first time in school it made no sense to me and reflexology seemed too much a routine. I must have retained a few things, however, because a few years later I saw a client need and retook both beginning levels; twice. I found elements of the training useful to my practice. I must admit a tendancy towards the mechanical because I find CS most useful for its gentle traction of the spine and decompression of the cranial bones, and use reflex points on the feet when appropriate, rather than a whole reflexology session.
Thai massage training has come in very useful for loosening muscles of the feet and leg; but I integrate it into a session rather than do a whole floor routine. There's also a reverance, taught with this modality, that reminds you as a therapist to slow down and tune into the client and their needs; similiar to what I've learned from TCM and Ayurveda instruction. I've never taken these eastern methods without my western skeptical filter. I also felt it wasn't possible to learn something passed down and practised for generations in one weekend workshop; or 10. So, I don't claim to be a practitioner of these methods; I do let them help me fine tune my work.
I've received acupunture, Reiki, Shiatsu, and Chi Gong and found them very relaxing, and subtly effective for pain issues and increasing my immunity. I don't like forceful manipulation but will refer to someone reputable when my clients might benefit from chiropractic work. All of these practitioners are well trained, skeptical people themselves.
I still prefer massage therapy to any other bodywork.
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on
-
Greetings, folks,
There has been a lot of argument over on the EBP discussions about the NCBTMB perpetuating unscientific practice. I realize many people don't care about national certification; however, when it comes to continuing education, most states require that continuing education comes from NCBTMB Approved Providers; only FL and Nebraska do their own approvals, if I'm not mistaken. I'm just giving that as background, because here are some interesting tidbits:
The AP listings on the NCB website include 62 pages of classes that are classified as energy work, with 25 classes listed per page, meaning there are over 1600 CE classes available in energy work. The majority are reiki and chakra-related classes; reflexology has its own separate category, as does Asian studies, which many would refer to as energy work, but which the NCB has categorized separately.
The Asian category include the classes on Ayruveda, acupressure, Shiatsu, Chi Nei Tsang, Chinese medicine, etc. There are 52 pages in that category, or about 1250 classes.
There are 16 pages of reflexology, meaning over 400 classes. There are more than 250 craniosacral classes, and more than 375 classes in aromatherapy.
There are 18 pages that are classified as "science", for slightly less than 500 classes. There were 27 pages of deep tissue classes, about 750 classes, less than half what is offered as energy work.
The Body Psychology category also contains a lot of woo-woo mixed in with the non-woo-woo.
The point is that there is a huge demand for these classes, and to put that into the correct perspective, since energy workers are not regulated and not required to obtain continuing education, these classes are out there because massage therapists and bodyworkers are taking them.
-
Permalink Reply by Nancy Toner Weinberger on
-
I think there is a tendency in our profession to call anything we can't touch or define scientifically "energy." For example, are thoughts energy? And do our thoughts have an impact on healing? We talk about intention- is intention energy work? What about patterns- are those energy? When you get the rush of release of a pattern as all that trapped "energy" is freed up, does that make what happened energy work?
The word "energy" is like the word "love." It's used in so many ways it's definition is elusive. Yet we all say we know what it is.
I teach energy work and have done energy work for many years. I have my own theories of how it works- but can I definitively say what it is? No. Even the very best energy worker must ask themselves from time to time- hey, is this all just a case of the emperer's new clothes? Or is it all really real? That skepticism keeps us honest. After all, a real approach to healing should stand up to questioning and skepticism.
It seems to me that energy work has been around for eons in the eastern, Sanscrit, and native traditions. It's still here so even a skeptic could argue that it must have some merit, even if we don't fully understand it. Even if science can't explain it all- yet.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
Vlad -
Thanks for a well-reasoned reply. I too have seen how this energy work issue parallels other issues in which science and belief systems conflict.
With regard to teaching - I will try! Thanks for the invitation, and for the compliments on the affective massage therapy editorial.
-CM
-
-
Stefanie Adams said: I agree with teaching instead of challenging beliefs.
I think I understand your point. A less-confrontational, more persuasive approach sometimes works best. In many ways, I agree with you (assuming I have understood you correctly, of course).
But it is also true that teaching sometimes requires challenging beliefs, is it not?
-
-
Everyone -
This is exciting and interesting. When I first posted this as a new discussion, I was a little worried that there might be no interest in it, but that's clearly not the case. The opposite appears to be true, so much so that I feel I may not be able to keep up with all the replies!
You've all given me some good things to think about, and have helped me to organize my thinking on how I might be able to offer a different perspective on what some folks in the massage therapy profession think of as "energetic" phenomena. I think I may chat with Kim about making this into an article or editorial of some kind. More to come...
-CM
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Just as a wee addition on teaching and learning about the scientific view (since there seems to be a consensus that there is interest in it). I don't expect anyone to take us by the hand and lead us through the woods completely.
I have recently discovered that there is a huge void in the education of massage therapists in the US in regard to research literacy. There is a movement and plans for this to change, but I think therapists also need to take the responsibility to educate themselves to some level. It would be a good idea for massage therapists to start reading about it if they don't know how to interpret and critique studies. Just throwing it out there.......
I have to run on here, but I'll add a wee list of starting points on research literacy books and articles later. I'm not an expert on it by any means (in fact, I'm a total newbie, still learning and always will keep on learning), but I think others might benefit from the list.
As for skepticism and energy work - it's great hearing about how people were introduced to energy modalities (especially Marilyn's story). It's interesting.
My introduction wasn't as interesting. I watched a couple of teachers do "something" on student once with their hands above the body (hands were about a foot above the body). It was actually more interesting watching the faces of the others in the class. I could nearly tell who were buying it from their faces. I like "counting" things (it's weird I know. I even try to predict the number of cell phones that I will see taken out when a plane lands) and I remember thinking that according to my very unscientific scanning of faces that I reckoned about half of the class bought into it. Looking back I think that maybe my face-scanning technique was wrong!
I bought into reflexology. I stopped selling it last week - threw my big colorful Ingham poster in the trash and said "Cheerio Eunice" when I did it. It didn't feel good when I did it. I bought into it because I wanted to.
Interesting thread, for sure.
-
Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on
-
Yes, exactly; we took what we needed and left the rest. When I became open to the tools these modalities gave me was when I realized deep tissue wasn't all that; know what I mean? It seems like many therapists go through this period where they think deep tissue is the only modality. I see many clients who have been either hurt or brainwashed from that attitude; they think they have to hurt after a session for it to have been a good one. It taught me to individualize a session, after a thorough evaluation of both health history and goals,and integrate subtle touch when needed (CS, Ortho-Bionomy, breathing, etc.). It also gave me a new awareness; not to invalidate modalities I hadn't learned yet.
Bert Davich said:Robyn, those were some observations that really hit home. Reflexology did not interest me after a 'treatment' and learning some of it's claims regarding diagnosing and treating illness. Then one day I was exposed to a reflexology distance learning DVD another therapist had on in the background when I visited her. First I noticed several manipulation techniques that I originally learned from Rolfers and had been using with success, particularly on the front arch. Next thing they are showing some techniques I was using but with a variation in application that adapted it to use for other issues. I also learned some new applications. It was a WOW moment in which I found new respect for reflexology, and a moment to reflect on why I dismissed Reflexology (overly skeptic) I realized that nothing should be dismissed so quickly without taking the time to learn what it really is about. Reflexology is a prime example of what some call a sham because of claims made by some practitioners that cannot be backed up, but in reality offers great benefit to a client if properly applied. I will never believe that all illness can be diagnosed by reflexology, however the manipulation techniques can be put to good practice, and it probably is possible to make an assessment regarding some illness by foot condition, just as physicians in England can diagnose bleeding ulcers by observing your fingernails.
Robin Byler Thomas said:Yea, me too Bert; interesting observations though. I'm skeptical about most new things, believe it or not Christopher, but will try them on, let them marinate for a while and see what happens. When learning Cranial Sacral for the first time in school it made no sense to me and reflexology seemed too much a routine. I must have retained a few things, however, because a few years later I saw a client need and retook both beginning levels; twice. I found elements of the training useful to my practice. I must admit a tendancy towards the mechanical because I find CS most useful for its gentle traction of the spine and decompression of the cranial bones, and use reflex points on the feet when appropriate, rather than a whole reflexology session.
Thai massage training has come in very useful for loosening muscles of the feet and leg; but I integrate it into a session rather than do a whole floor routine. There's also a reverance, taught with this modality, that reminds you as a therapist to slow down and tune into the client and their needs; similiar to what I've learned from TCM and Ayurveda instruction. I've never taken these eastern methods without my western skeptical filter. I also felt it wasn't possible to learn something passed down and practised for generations in one weekend workshop; or 10. So, I don't claim to be a practitioner of these methods; I do let them help me fine tune my work.
I've received acupunture, Reiki, Shiatsu, and Chi Gong and found them very relaxing, and subtly effective for pain issues and increasing my immunity. I don't like forceful manipulation but will refer to someone reputable when my clients might benefit from chiropractic work. All of these practitioners are well trained, skeptical people themselves.
I still prefer massage therapy to any other bodywork.
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
Dear Chris,
I am not skeptical of energy healing and I am not skeptical of science. I am skeptical of people who call themselves healers or those who talk about energy as the answer to everything. I am also skeptical of those who in the name of science knock massage therapy and energy healing. It is really easy to call someone a quack when you don't understand what they do.
My minor was in statistics, so I definitely understand the merit of clinical research. I just don't think that saying "reiki doesn't work, never did, never will" does the trick unless you want to tick people off. Neither am I convinced that all clinical research takes into consideration all the relevant dimensions that would go into a massage therapy treatment, especially if someone starts from a biased perspective.
I can see the point of gaining the respect of other professionals and being able to substantiate that massage therapy has indeed therapeutic results, but some of the evidence-based discussions feel like a fraternity hazing ritual. We want to be so much part of the medical establishment that we will do anything it takes. We will put aside anything that defined us in the past: pampering is silly, energy doesn't work, feeling good is wrong, feeling pain is good, relaxation and wellness massage do not count, but fixing something that is broken is good. To top it all off, we hire a psychology researcher to make fun of us. I find that crazy. I am not saying we should stop the research, research is good, we just can't be so pre-occupied with being accepted that we lose ourselves (you would not be losing yourself because you are not a massage therapist).
Science is a wonderful thing and is evolving every day. Some recent theories contemplate relationships of sub-atomic particles or the notion that we are all connected by an invisible web of particles that communicate with speeds faster than the speed of light (contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity). I am not saying that these theories are correct, but who knows? I don't and and I don't think you do either. Could they explain what goes on with energy healing? I would not close the door to anything.
Only 400 years ago the earth was believed to be the center of the universe, then the sun became the center of the universe, now our sun is just a little dot in a vast sea of planetary systems and galaxies, and we still don't have the complete picture. Some theories were not proven until new tools started being built. Are you sure that the tools that prove the effectiveness of a pill can prove the effectiveness of energy healing?
Someone wrote here that you are going against some core beliefs. For many, practicing massage therapy or eastern modalities presupposes the understanding that the human body is more than just bones, muscles, and the stuff that we see. The concept of energy, chi, soul, life, consciousness are a big part of the picture. This is a clash in belief systems, indeed, just like a clash in religions.
I liked what Laura said about her husband. Many people go to massage schools and consider certain things 'hocus-pocus'; eventually many become believers. I recall when I took my first craniosacral therapy (CST) class and I was trying for a long time to experience the craniosacral rhythm, there was a moment that I gave up and thought "what a bunch of baloney".. it was exactly then that it hit me. I finally *knew* what the instructor was talking about; I *felt* what the instructor was talking about. The moment my mind stopped thinking and analyzing, I got it.
A question for you: Would you ever consider going to massage school to learn massage therapy? You may find that your perspective may change.
Emmanuel
-
-
Robin you just keep hitting home. Individualizing treatment is the best approach to treatment in my opinion. That is one reason I do not want 'modalities' like Reflexology quashed because of some invalid claims they may have. It is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. The tradition of passing these approaches to treatment has kept them alive for us to 'mine' as we will, for which I am grateful. There are also reasons why I don't want energy modalities quashed having nothing to do with the validity of some of their claims. I will post that for Chris later, maybe in the next few days. It may take some time to articulate that with proper clarification.
Robin Byler Thomas said:Yes, exactly; we took what we needed and left the rest. When I became open to the tools these modalities gave me was when I realized deep tissue wasn't all that; know what I mean? It seems like many therapists go through this period where they think deep tissue is the only modality. I see many clients who have been either hurt or brainwashed from that attitude; they think they have to hurt after a session for it to have been a good one. It taught me to individualize a session, after a thorough evaluation of both health history and goals,and integrate subtle touch when needed (CS, Ortho-Bionomy, breathing, etc.). It also gave me a new awareness; not to invalidate modalities I hadn't learned yet.
-
-
Great Observations. They needed to be stated.
Emmanuel Bistas said:Dear Chris,
I am not skeptical of energy healing and I am not skeptical of science. I am skeptical of people who call themselves healers or those who talk about energy as the answer to everything. I am also skeptical of those who in the name of science knock massage therapy and energy healing. It is really easy to call someone a quack when you don't understand what they do.
My minor was in statistics, so I definitely understand the merit of clinical research. I just don't think that saying "reiki doesn't work, never did, never will" does the trick unless you want to tick people off. Neither am I convinced that all clinical research takes into consideration all the relevant dimensions that would go into a massage therapy treatment, especially if someone starts from a biased perspective.
I can see the point of gaining the respect of other professionals and being able to substantiate that massage therapy has indeed therapeutic results, but some of the evidence-based discussions feel like a fraternity hazing ritual. We want to be so much part of the medical establishment that we will do anything it takes. We will put aside anything that defined us in the past: pampering is silly, energy doesn't work, feeling good is wrong, feeling pain is good, relaxation and wellness massage do not count, but fixing something that is broken is good. To top it all off, we hire a psychology researcher to make fun of us. I find that crazy. I am not saying we should stop the research, research is good, we just can't be so pre-occupied with being accepted that we lose ourselves (you would not be losing yourself because you are not a massage therapist).
Science is a wonderful thing and is evolving every day. Some recent theories contemplate relationships of sub-atomic particles or the notion that we are all connected by an invisible web of particles that communicate with speeds faster than the speed of light (contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity). I am not saying that these theories are correct, but who knows? I don't and and I don't think you do either. Could they explain what goes on with energy healing? I would not close the door to anything.
Only 400 years ago the earth was believed to be the center of the universe, then the sun became the center of the universe, now our sun is just a little dot in a vast sea of planetary systems and galaxies, and we still don't have the complete picture. Some theories were not proven until new tools started being built. Are you sure that the tools that prove the effectiveness of a pill can prove the effectiveness of energy healing?
Someone wrote here that you are going against some core beliefs. For many, practicing massage therapy or eastern modalities presupposes the understanding that the human body is more than just bones, muscles, and the stuff that we see. The concept of energy, chi, soul, life, consciousness are a big part of the picture. This is a clash in belief systems, indeed, just like a clash in religions.
I liked what Laura said about her husband. Many people go to massage schools and consider certain things 'hocus-pocus'; eventually many become believers. I recall when I took my first craniosacral therapy (CST) class and I was trying for a long time to experience the craniosacral rhythm, there was a moment that I gave up and thought "what a bunch of baloney".. it was exactly then that it hit me. I finally *knew* what the instructor was talking about; I *felt* what the instructor was talking about. The moment my mind stopped thinking and analyzing, I got it.
A question for you: Would you ever consider going to massage school to learn massage therapy? You may find that your perspective may change.
Emmanuel
-
-
Hi Emmanuel. I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.
I am not skeptical of energy healing and I am not skeptical of science. I am skeptical of people who call themselves healers or those who talk about energy as the answer to everything. I am also skeptical of those who in the name of science knock massage therapy and energy healing. It is really easy to call someone a quack when you don't understand what they do.
I don't know if you're referring to me specifically or just making a point more generally, but I think that I do have a reasonable idea of what massage therapists and energy workers do. In other words, I don't think I'm just throwing stones if I critique one of these practices. I'm also open to evidence and to changing my position. If convincing proof of the tenets of energy work were demonstrated, my scientific position on it would change.
My minor was in statistics, so I definitely understand the merit of clinical research. I just don't think that saying "reiki doesn't work, never did, never will" does the trick unless you want to tick people off.
O.K. But what if someone asserts something that I have reason to believe is not possible? Am I forbidden from giving my scientific opinion on the matter, just because someone may not like it?
Neither am I convinced that all clinical research takes into consideration all the relevant dimensions that would go into a massage therapy treatment, especially if someone starts from a biased perspective.
I would never say that "all clinical research takes into consideration all the relevant dimensions" that may be important to consider. The point I was making earlier was that clinical research is most definitely able to address multiple variables and their interactions. I made this point to counteract the common misperception that science can somehow only be conducted to examine some kind of "pure" laboratory situation where everything is perfectly controlled.
The results of well-designed clinical research, considered together, can and do converge on conclusions that address the things we are most interested in. In other words, the inherent complexity of clinical situations is not inaccessible to science. (I hope to be able to address this at more length in a future writing.)
I can see the point of gaining the respect of other professionals and being able to substantiate that massage therapy has indeed therapeutic results, but some of the evidence-based discussions feel like a fraternity hazing ritual. We want to be so much part of the medical establishment that we will do anything it takes. We will put aside anything that defined us in the past: pampering is silly, energy doesn't work, feeling good is wrong, feeling pain is good, relaxation and wellness massage do not count, but fixing something that is broken is good. To top it all off, we hire a psychology researcher to make fun of us. I find that crazy.
I assume this does refer specifically to me (please correct me if I am mistaken). I am on the psychology faculty at University of Wisconsin-Stout; that is how I make my living. Several years ago I received a one-time research grant from the Massage Therapy Foundation ($20,000) of which a portion went towards paying me a 1/3 time stipend as a doctoral graduate student (not much money to me directly). I currently earn a small (but appreciated!) stipend to serve as the research section editor of the Foundation's online journal (see www.ijtmb.org ). In sum, I don't think it's accurate to say I've been "hired" by the profession in any significant way. More importantly, I certainly don't make fun of the profession or its members! I happen to love massage therapy and have great relationships with many of the people I have met who are involved in it.
If there is a specific incidence of me making fun of this profession, please draw my attention to it.
I am not saying we should stop the research, research is good, we just can't be so pre-occupied with being accepted that we lose ourselves (you would not be losing yourself because you are not a massage therapist).
That is true; I am not. I'm personally not very interested or invested in the politics of the profession, and that may concern some people. But consider this - even if I was not critical of the profession at times, someone else would be. Science marches on, and if there is an interesting gap to be filled, such as researching how and why massage therapy works, sooner or later someone comes along and works on it.
Science is a wonderful thing and is evolving every day. Some recent theories contemplate relationships of sub-atomic particles or the notion that we are all connected by an invisible web of particles that communicate with speeds faster than the speed of light (contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity). I am not saying that these theories are correct, but who knows? I don't and and I don't think you do either. Could they explain what goes on with energy healing? I would not close the door to anything.
The "door" never gets closed and permanently locked in science. But, certain doors are so close to being that way that it would take an ENORMOUS amount of evidence to open them. Could there ever be a perpetual motion machine? The possibility is so remote, based on hundreds of years of accumulated scientific knowledge, that we can treat that door as practically closed. Now, if someone actually succeeded at building that machine, obviously we'd have to open that door. But I don't think that's going to happen.
Only 400 years ago the earth was believed to be the center of the universe, then the sun became the center of the universe, now our sun is just a little dot in a vast sea of planetary systems and galaxies, and we still don't have the complete picture. Some theories were not proven until new tools started being built. Are you sure that the tools that prove the effectiveness of a pill can prove the effectiveness of energy healing?
In a word, yes. If it is there to be discovered, the same scientific principles apply.
Someone wrote here that you are going against some core beliefs. For many, practicing massage therapy or eastern modalities presupposes the understanding that the human body is more than just bones, muscles, and the stuff that we see. The concept of energy, chi, soul, life, consciousness are a big part of the picture. This is a clash in belief systems, indeed, just like a clash in religions.
I liked what Laura said about her husband. Many people go to massage schools and consider certain things 'hocus-pocus'; eventually many become believers. I recall when I took my first craniosacral therapy (CST) class and I was trying for a long time to experience the craniosacral rhythm, there was a moment that I gave up and thought "what a bunch of baloney".. it was exactly then that it hit me. I finally *knew* what the instructor was talking about; I *felt* what the instructor was talking about. The moment my mind stopped thinking and analyzing, I got it.
I agree that is an interesting phenomenon, but I believe I may have a better explanation for it than the one supposed by craniosacral therapy. I am going to try and describe this in an article that I am already planning (I apologize that I cannot spell it out right here succinctly at this time).
A question for you: Would you ever consider going to massage school to learn massage therapy? You may find that your perspective may change.
A terrific question! Yes, I have often considered it. My motivation would be to gain insight that I could use in research, as I'm not personally interested in performing massage therapy as my own career. The problem is that my current career duties keep me very, very busy, and if I did massage training I would want to do it well. Perhaps I will look into this if and when I have a sabbatical, but that would be some time in the future.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
