Reiki and Chiropractic Can Healing Touch Bridge the Evidence Gap

Chiropractic has always been a hands-on profession, yet the meaning of touch has become harder to talk about in evidence-based care. The modern chiropractic field often emphasizes biomechanics, neurology, function, and measurable outcomes. That focus has helped the profession earn a stronger place in mainstream health care.

At the same time, it may have narrowed the conversation. If patients often describe touch as calming, grounding, or therapeutic beyond the mechanical adjustment itself, should chiropractic science ignore that experience or study it more carefully?

Charles Blum, DC, raises that question through an unexpected comparison: Reiki, a healing touch practice, has gained attention in biomedical settings while chiropractic has often moved away from discussing the healing qualities of touch.

Hands-on care remains central to the chiropractic encounter.

Chiropractic began with touch and energy language

Chiropractic’s origin story is closely tied to hands-on healing. D. D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, practiced magnetic healing before developing chiropractic. Early chiropractic language often included ideas about vitalism, innate intelligence, and the body’s self-healing capacity.

Modern chiropractic education has changed greatly since then. Today, chiropractic research often focuses on:

• Spinal manipulation and musculoskeletal pain

• Nervous system function

• Mobility and biomechanics

• Clinical outcomes and patient safety

• Integration with other health professions

  
  

This shift has real benefits. It helps clinicians communicate clearly with medical providers, insurers, researchers, and patients who expect evidence-based explanations.

Yet Blum’s article asks whether something may have been lost in the process. Touch is not merely a delivery system for force. In clinical care, touch can also carry meaning, reassurance, attention, and trust.

That does not mean every claim about energy healing should be accepted without question. It means touch deserves careful study rather than dismissal.

Reiki offers a useful comparison

Reiki is often described as a gentle practice in which a practitioner uses light touch or hands placed near the body with the intention of supporting well-being. It is commonly used as a complementary therapy, not a replacement for medical care.

Blum’s literature search looked for articles with “Reiki” in the title on PubMed. The search retrieved 201 articles. Within those articles, he identified supportive evidence across several biomedical areas, including oncology, hospital settings, pediatrics, nursing, pain relief, psychotherapy-related uses, cardiovascular topics, and placebo comparison studies.

These numbers do not mean Reiki is proven for every condition. They also do not settle questions about mechanism. Study quality, sample size, blinding, and placebo effects all matter.

Still, the presence of this literature is meaningful. Reiki has been studied in settings where chiropractic may sometimes struggle to discuss non-mechanical aspects of care. That raises a fair question: if hospitals, nurses, oncology teams, and pain researchers can examine Reiki, why should chiropractic avoid studying healing touch within its own clinical encounter?

The evidence gap is not a reason to stop asking questions

The phrase “evidence gap” can be used in two very different ways. It can be used to shut down a topic, or it can be used to define the next research question.

For chiropractic, the better path is the second one.

A patient receiving chiropractic care experiences more than an adjustment. The visit may include listening, palpation, positioning, reassurance, breathing, expectation, and physical contact. Some of these factors are specific, and some are contextual. Both may affect the patient’s experience.

Research could ask practical questions such as:

• Does therapeutic touch affect pain perception during or after chiropractic care?

• Does practitioner contact influence patient anxiety or relaxation?

• Can the quality of touch change patient trust or satisfaction?

• Are outcomes different when touch is intentional, neutral, or minimized?

• How do patient expectations shape response?

  
  

These questions do not require abandoning science. They require better study design.

A serious evidence-based profession does not need to deny the human parts of care. It can measure them, test them, and separate useful effects from unsupported claims.

Research can help separate touch, expectation, comfort, and clinical effect.

Chiropractic should study touch without overstating it

The strongest argument for studying healing touch in chiropractic is not that Reiki and chiropractic are the same. They are not. Chiropractic has its own history, training, techniques, and clinical goals.

The point is more focused: both involve human touch, patient perception, and therapeutic context.

If Reiki can be evaluated in pain, oncology support, pediatric care, nursing, and hospital settings, chiropractic can also study the non-mechanical effects of hands-on care. That includes the emotional and sensory parts of treatment that patients often notice but researchers may not fully capture.

There are also cautions.

Chiropractic should not make broad claims that touch alone cures disease. It should not replace appropriate medical diagnosis or treatment. It should not use vague energy language as a shield against testing.

Instead, chiropractic researchers can use careful terms:

• Comfort

• Relaxation response

• Therapeutic alliance

• Patient expectations

• Touch perception

• Pain modulation

• Patient-reported outcomes

  
  

This kind of language makes the topic easier to study and less likely to drift into claims that exceed the evidence.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide medical advice. Patients should consult qualified health professionals for diagnosis and treatment decisions.

A bridge between tradition and modern evidence

The debate around healing touch reflects a larger tension in chiropractic. The profession wants to honor its hands-on identity while also meeting modern standards for evidence, safety, and accountability.

Those goals do not have to conflict.

Chiropractic can remain grounded in measurable clinical practice while asking deeper questions about the role of touch. Reiki research may not give chiropractic all the answers, but it shows that biomedical settings are willing to explore touch-based care when the questions are framed carefully.

The next step is not to revive every historical claim. It is to study the chiropractic encounter more completely.

Touch is already part of the profession. The real question is whether chiropractic will examine it with the same seriousness it gives to joints, muscles, nerves, and movement.

Citation

Blum C. Has the field of chiropractic discarded “healing touch” as part of its armamentarium? Reiki, a literature search, and its implications for the chiropractic profession. 2025 SOT Research Conference. p. 30.