Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What peer-reviewed studies support biofield energy healing?
Executive summary
Peer-reviewed literature on biofield energy healing includes hundreds of clinical reports and several systematic reviews and guidelines; a 2025 scoping review identified 353 studies (255 RCTs) across modalities such as Reiki, Therapeutic Touch and distant healing [1]. Major syntheses and reporting standards conclude the evidence is mixed, limited by methodological problems, but enough to prompt new reporting guidelines and an interactive evidence map to guide future trials [2] [3].
1. What the peer‑reviewed landscape actually contains — quantity, types, and modalities
A comprehensive scoping review published in 2025 catalogued 353 peer‑reviewed interventional studies (255 randomized controlled trials, 36 controlled clinical trials, 62 pre–post designs) studying named biofield interventions including Reiki (n=88), Therapeutic Touch (n=71), Healing Touch (n=31), intercessory prayer and distant healing among others [1]. Earlier systematic reviews and syntheses likewise surveyed dozens of clinical studies across populations such as healthy volunteers, pain and cancer patients, documenting broad but variable interest in these modalities [4] [5].
2. What the best recent syntheses conclude — promising signals vs. methodological limits
Authors of recent reviews and clinical summaries stress two points: some trials report positive effects on outcomes like anxiety, quality of life, pain or psychological symptoms, but overall findings are inconclusive because of small samples, inconsistent controls, poor blinding/reporting, and publication bias risks [5] [4]. The 2025 scoping review and related reporting guidance explicitly call for better transparency and standardized reporting because inconclusive findings are often driven by trial design and reporting shortcomings [2] [3].
3. New tools and standards — aiming to improve credibility
Recognizing those weaknesses, researchers published BiFi REGs — a 15‑item checklist to improve intervention description and trial reporting for biofield therapies, with the explicit intention of facilitating replication and more reliable systematic reviews [3]. News coverage and institutional summaries highlight these guidelines as a major step to make future trials more interpretable and clinically actionable [6] [7].
4. Examples of peer‑reviewed clinical trials and controversies about them
Several randomized, double‑blind placebo‑controlled trials report positive outcomes; for example, a 2024 randomized trial of distant biofield healing reported improvements in psychological and mental‑health related symptoms versus placebo without study‑related adverse effects [8]. However, some influential trials have been retracted or criticized: a randomized trial on psychological symptoms labeled as “biofield energy treatment” was retracted, underscoring concerns about data integrity and reproducibility in parts of the literature [9] [10].
5. Mechanistic claims and laboratory/physiology studies — sparse and contested
Preclinical and physiological investigations exist (cell culture, electrophysiology, practitioner biomarker studies), and a 2025 Scientific Reports study attempted simultaneous electrophysiological and cellular assessments during practitioner‑delivered treatment sessions [11]. Still, mainstream clinical reporting outlets and reviews emphasize that a well‑established biophysical mechanism for non‑contact “energy” transfer is lacking and that some commentators state “no scientific evidence suggests that energy fields exist” in the way practitioners describe them [12] [13].
6. How to interpret the evidence as a reader or clinician
The evidence base is heterogeneous: there are hundreds of peer‑reviewed reports, including many RCTs [1], but syntheses repeatedly warn that methodological flaws and inconsistent reporting prevent confident claims of efficacy for specific conditions [5] [4]. The field is actively trying to professionalize research methods via reporting guidelines [3], which means more reliable answers could become available if future trials follow these standards.
7. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas to watch for
Proponents and some narrative reviews argue that accumulated trials and pilot studies show therapeutic potential worthy of clinical use and further study [14]. Skeptical outlets and mainstream health summaries caution that positive findings frequently arise from low‑quality trials and that some high‑profile studies have been retracted, suggesting both publication bias and variable scientific rigor [12] [9]. Also note advocacy and practitioner groups (and some private funders) actively promote biofield research, which can shape what gets studied and published [15] [5].
8. Bottom line and practical next steps
If you want peer‑reviewed support for biofield therapies today, cite the scoping review documenting 353 clinical studies and the multiple systematic reviews that report mixed findings with methodological caveats [1] [4]. For researchers or clinicians, the immediate priority is to use the new BiFi REGs checklist and higher‑quality RCT designs so future meta‑analyses can move from “promising but uncertain” to definitive [3] [2].
Limitations: available sources do not mention every individual trial by name; this summary relies on the scoping review, several syntheses, guideline papers, and selected RCTs and retractions referenced above [1] [2] [3] [8] [9].