Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

What if there are some things where scientific objectivity and scientific method breaks down, and is incapable of exploring?

It's ok if you feel that what I said was irresponsible. I know that is the mainstream view of things, and I expected a lot of backlash for posting a comment on this.

I usually hang out with the crowd where the experience and reality of subtle energy is not in doubt. Among them are the people for whom ... let's just say, something in then turns on (or something), and they are experiencing a number of phenomenas which includes subtle energy. Some of it are triggered by psychedelics, and some of it is not. For them, they experience what you feel: cognitive dissonance, anxiety, fear, anger. They freak out.

Among them are both people who actively sought it out ... and people who are open-minded skeptics. At that point, they are lost. The responsible thing at that point is to provide a framework to help them make sense of it. The ones who are skeptical appreciate it. They have the opportunity to explore and test out the claims for themselves.

It's not so strange that Reiki works; it's a form of placebo effect. Placebos work, despite there provably being no active ingredient at work, and there being no reason at all for them to work except for the belief of the recipient. There's a good reason why new medicine needs to be proven to be better than a placebo in a double-blind study, and not merely better than no treatment at all with patients who know what they're getting. It is because a placebo does have effect.

Of course this belief is not going to cure cancer or broken bones, but it can reduce pain, nausea or affect other feelings. And feelings do matter. Our mind is not detached from our body, it is part of it. What we believe influences what we do, how our bodies react. How our bodies heal.

As a parent, I cure a lot of my kid's injuries with a kiss. It's surprisingly effective. No idea why. It's pure placebo, but it helps.

Placebos are still a poorly understood field. I've read that the placebo effect has been getting measurably stronger of the past few decades. How is that possible? And the size and colour of placebo pills matters. Believing that the placebo is the real thing rather than a placebo also helps, but even if you do know it's just a placebo, it can still have some effect.

The human mind is weird and still poorly understood. I don't want to get mystical about it; the mumbo jumbo behind reiki with its ki energy and all is most likely total nonsense. But our mind is part of our body, and what we think and believe influences what we do and how our body behaves. So believing in it may still help, which creates an ethical conundrum: is it okay to lie to someone when that lie has been proven to be good for their health? I honestly don't know. I often think I'm too skeptical to receive much benefit from these 'alternative treatments', just like a kiss is unlikely to make an adult's pain go away. I like believing the truth. But in this case believing the lie might be better for you. I'm still not sure how I feel about that.

From my brief meeting with someone who did Reiki, it seemed to involve a lot of hovering, and zero touching. Maybe there are different styles.

I agree a touching studying would be worthwhile. But I'm not sure Reiki is evidence supporting one.

I googled a bit and found this:

> Will the Reiki Practitioner’s hands touch me in any way?

> At your option. Reiki may be done with a light gentle pressure static touch or the Practitioner’s hands may be a few inches/centimeters above your body at the hand positions with no actual touch. There are standard hand placements beginning at your head or feet, avoiding all sensitive body parts. Let your Practitioner know prior to the session which you prefer, light touch or no touch.

https://iarp.org/reiki-sessions-what-to-expect/

You've linked to the dodo bird hypothesis, but the dodo bird hypothesis does NOT claim that all psychotherapy is placebo. It claims that all or nearly all established evidence-supported treatments given by trained professionals produce very similar outcomes.

If you read deeper in the page you linked on the subject, it goes on to the actual conclusion that the common factors of psychotherapy - empathy, positive regard, strategic alliance, and others - are predictive of psychotherapeutic outcome across therapies. In addition, it is shown that many key features of modern psychotherapies including awareness of one's thoughts and emotions are essentially universal therapeutic components.

In the book on the subject by Wampold and Imel, they found real and significant difference between therapists on their ability to produce outcome based on these common factors. So while modern therapeutic models may be indistinguishable in terms of outcome, modern therapists are not. And there IS such a thing as better vs worse therapy. And this is an ongoing research area.

Reasonable if evaluating your treatment options, and those are the only two available to you.

Not reasonable if you are trying to determine the best treatment options and others exist, such as "anything with actual clinical trials that show it more effective than placebo", which is hardly an unrealistic alternative.