Does Reiki Work? What the Evidence Says

Share Questions? Write to us

The honest answer is this: scientific evidence does not show that Reiki cures illness, and the major institutions are clear about it. There are limited-quality studies pointing to small improvements in quality of life, relaxation and perceived pain. And there is broad agreement that the practice is safe.

That is everything that can be said with rigour today. The rest of this article explains where each of those sentences comes from.

The question is a fair one

If you arrived here searching "does reiki work" or "is reiki nonsense", let me start with this: asking is right.

I have spent more than seventeen years on this path and I still believe doubt is a form of respect. Respect for your time, your money, your health. Anyone who asks you to stop questioning is not looking after you.

I am not going to get defensive. I am going to put what exists on the table, including the parts that do not favour me.

What the reference institutions say

When someone wants to know whether a health practice has backing, two sources carry more weight than the rest: the Cochrane Collaboration, which produces rigorous systematic reviews, and the NCCIH, the US National Institutes of Health centre devoted to complementary practices.

The 2015 Cochrane review

In 2015, Joyce and Herbison published a Cochrane review of Reiki for anxiety and depression. They found only three randomised trials, with roughly 62 participants in total.

Sixty-two people. For perspective, a serious drug trial usually enrols hundreds or thousands.

Their conclusion was that there is insufficient evidence to say whether Reiki is useful for anxiety or depression. Read that carefully: it does not say "it does not work". It says there is not enough material to answer. Those are different things, and blurring them would be dishonest in either direction.

The NCCIH position

The NCCIH maintains an information page on Reiki. Its position comes down to three statements worth reading in full:

Reiki has not been clearly shown to be effective for any health-related purpose.
There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of the energy field the practice proposes.
Reiki has not been shown to have harmful effects.

You can read it at the source: nccih.nih.gov/health/reiki.

The second statement is the uncomfortable one for those of us who work with this, and there is no point hiding it. Science has not found the energy field practitioners describe. Full stop.

Liu et al., 2025

In 2025, Liu and colleagues published a meta-analysis in Systematic Reviews pooling 11 trials and 661 participants — far more material than was available in 2015.

They found a small but statistically significant improvement in quality of life: a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.28, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.01 to 0.56.

In plain terms: the effect is real in the data, but modest, and the lower bound of the interval sits right against zero. Had that interval crossed zero, the result would not have been significant. It is on the edge.

Heterogeneity between studies was also high: I² = 65.1%. The included trials differed considerably in methods, populations and outcomes, which means the average has to be read with caution.

One detail I do find interesting: the subgroups with the best results were those receiving eight or more sessions and sessions of sixty minutes or longer. That matches what I observe in practice — though a match is not proof.

Demir Doğan, 2018, on pain

Demir Doğan published a meta-analysis on pain in Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. The signal was positive, with methodological limitations acknowledged by the author herself.

An encouraging result that cannot be presented as a firm conclusion.

The evidence at a glance

Source	What it examined	What it found	How to read it
Cochrane (Joyce & Herbison, 2015)	Anxiety and depression; 3 trials, ~62 participants	Insufficient evidence to conclude	Absence of evidence, not evidence of absence
NCCIH / NIH	General state of the research	Not clearly shown effective; no evidence for the energy field; no harmful effects shown	The most citable institutional reference
Liu et al., 2025	Quality of life; 11 trials, 661 participants	SMD 0.28 (95% CI 0.01–0.56); I² = 65.1%	Small effect, borderline significance, high heterogeneity
Demir Doğan, 2018	Pain	Positive signal	Methodological limitations; not conclusive

Why is Reiki so hard to study?

I will explain this, and I want to be clear in advance that it is not an excuse. Methodological difficulty explains why the studies are small and variable; it does not rescue claims the evidence cannot support.

Blinding. In a drug trial, neither patient nor investigator knows who receives the active compound. In Reiki, the practitioner always knows what they are doing. "Sham practitioners" have been used — untrained people imitating hand placements — but that creates another problem: if part of the effect comes from attentive contact and rest, the control group gets that too.

Variability. There is no standardised protocol. A thirty-minute session with one practitioner and an hour with another can be very different experiences. That is what drives the heterogeneity we saw in the I².

Outcomes. What gets measured — quality of life, perceived anxiety, self-reported pain — are subjective scales. They are legitimate and used across medicine, but noisier than a blood test.

Funding. No industry funds large Reiki trials. Studies get done on small budgets, at single sites, with short samples.

None of this turns an untested hypothesis into a fact. It only explains why the archive is so thin.

How to read what you find online

You will run into pages claiming Reiki is "backed by science" and others calling it a fraud. Both usually lean badly on the same sources.

Three signs someone is overselling: citing a study without saying how many participants it had; presenting a narrative review written by practitioners as though it were independent; or turning "improvement in quality of life" into "cure". On that last point, be aware that reviews written from a pro-Reiki position circulate as if they were neutral assessments. They are not.

Two signs someone is overselling the other way: using the 2015 Cochrane review as if it concluded Reiki does not work, when it concluded there was not enough data; or ignoring that the same NCCIH that rejects the energy field also states no harmful effects have been observed.

Honesty here means tolerating the discomfort of "we do not know".

What I can say honestly

Two planes need separating, and I want the line to be sharp.

What science has shown

That Reiki is safe. That there is insufficient evidence to claim effectiveness for any specific condition. That there is no evidence for the energy field. That a small signal exists for quality of life and pain, in limited studies.

That is all. None of it authorises anyone to promise you a cure.

What I see in my practice

This is not scientific evidence and I do not present it as such. It is first-hand observation, with all the bias that implies: I mostly see the people who come back, not the ones who did not.

I see people arrive with their shoulders around their ears, and fifteen minutes later their breathing changes. I see people who have slept badly for months fall asleep on the table — something that sometimes embarrasses them and that I celebrate.

In Santa Elena, the cloud-forest village in the mountains above Medellín where I also work, this happens sooner than it does in the city. Up there it is cold and quiet. In Medellín, with traffic humming in the background, people take a little longer to let go.

And I notice something worth naming: many of those who come have not had, in months, a full hour where someone was simply attentive to them and asked nothing in return. How much of what happens comes from the hands and how much from that presence, I do not know. Honestly, nobody knows yet.

What I can say is that I have not seen harm, and that many people describe relief. I treat both with the same care: the first is consistent with the evidence, the second is a story, not a proof.

So, is it worth it?

It depends what you expect.

If you are looking for a therapy that will resolve a diagnosis, Reiki is not that, and anyone telling you otherwise is misleading you. If you are looking for an hour of deep rest and calm company, complementary to your medical care, then it is a safe option many people find valuable.

That is the honest ground. It is not nothing.

If you want to keep reading, three of these help: Reiki and the placebo effect, Is Reiki dangerous? and How many sessions do I need?. If you would rather see how I work, there is the session itself and who I am.

Frequently asked questions

Is Reiki scientifically proven? No. The NCCIH states that Reiki has not been clearly shown to be effective for any health purpose, and that there is no scientific evidence for the energy field the practice proposes. Some studies suggest small improvements in quality of life and pain, but they are limited in size and quality. Calling it proven would be false.

If it is not proven, why do people say they feel better? Because feeling better and a technique being effective are different things. Rest, respectful touch, another person's sustained attention and expectation all influence how we feel. All of that is real. What is not established is how much the energy channelling itself contributes beyond those factors.

Did Cochrane say Reiki does not work? No. The 2015 review said evidence was insufficient to determine whether Reiki helps with anxiety or depression, because only three trials with about 62 participants existed. "We do not know" is not "it does not work". Anyone citing it at either extreme is bending it.

How many sessions does the evidence recommend? The evidence sets no number. In the 2025 Liu meta-analysis, the subgroups with the best results were those receiving eight or more sessions of sixty minutes or longer. That is a signal inside a highly heterogeneous analysis, not a clinical guideline.

Can I have Reiki while under medical treatment? Yes, as a complement and without stopping anything. Available evidence indicates Reiki is safe and non-invasive. What matters is that you continue your treatment, that your treating professional knows what you are doing, and that no practitioner ever suggests changing a medication. That last one is a red flag.

Disclaimer

This article is for educational purposes and does not replace diagnosis, treatment or follow-up by a healthcare professional. Reiki is a complementary practice: it accompanies, it does not substitute. If you are under medical or psychological care, continue it and talk to your treating professional before adding any complementary therapy.

If you are still curious after all that, write to me on WhatsApp at +57 314 811 7561. Sessions are available in English, in Medellín, in Santa Elena, or at a distance. You do not need to believe anything to come. Wanting an hour of rest is enough.