A Response to GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING REIKI AS AN ALTERNATIVE THERAPY by the United States Conference of Bishops

After reading through the document a couple of times I am not surprised that it seems designed to support a viewpoint arrived at before any “study” was undertaken. There are several problems with the information in the GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING REIKI AS AN ALTERNATIVE THERAPY promulgated by the United States Conference of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.

First, contrary to the Bishops’ assertion, Reiki is widely accepted in the western medical community as an complemenatry therapy. Many hospitals not only have training for staff but maintain volunteer programs for area reiki practitioners to offer sessions to patients. There have been studies conducted on the efficacy of Reiki and other hands-on healing practices. No study shows any adverse effects from receiving Reiki and the majority of studies show positive effects, particularly in providing the recipient with a profound sense of relaxation and peace and the physiological benefits that accompany it.

Secondly, the philosophical/scientific basis for reiki is not “superstition.” Eastern medicine has been used sucessfully for thousands of years to treat a wide variety of ailments. The underlying concepts of ki, chi, prana, etc. have been tested over and over again in highly developed and sophisticated cultures. Eastern medicine was healing people when western medicine was all leeching and bloodletting. This is not to say that eastern medicine is without its problems or shortcomings, but it is effective and proven. Usui’s Reiki is rooted in the eastern understanding of health and health science. By harping on the term “Universal Life Force” the Bishops obscure (perhaps deliberately) the meaning and application of “ki” in understanding and creating better health.

Furthermore, Reiki was not “invented” by Usui. His techniques are firmly grounded in the longstanding Japanese traditions of teate and tenohira - established “palm healing” techniques. He did not discover the techniques “reading buddhist texts.” As far as scholars have been able to determine, Usui was a Buddhist and perhaps a Buddhist lay-priest in a “Pure-Land” sect. But, as his memorial points out, he was widely read in many religious traditions and metaphysical practices.

I could go on but suffice it to say that the Bishops did a sloppy job in their research because they simply wanted to, as is the want of the Roman Church, dismiss and denigrate what they cannot control.

It would have been more fruitful for them to discuss and affirm in as far as possible, the 5 Principles that Usui espoused and that were the backbone of his teaching. The Principles are fundametal ethical guidelines that resonate clearly with many of the world’s wisdom traditions, including Christianity. They could also have made connections to Usui’s insistence that students meditate, that they engage in spiritual practice as a primary component of practice.

So let me be blunt, the Bishops’ statement is bloated with ignorance and patently offensive to people of faith who are rational, ethical and of good will.