Seduc&on of Therapeu&c Touch

Transcription

1 Seduc&on of Therapeu&c Touch It would be inaccurate to suggest that before the involvement of the federal government that some alterna&ve medicine was not embraced in the medical community. The prac&ce was known as Therapeu&c Touch, and it was first taught as a graduate level course at the dis&nguished New York University

2 The course was en&tled, Fron%ers in Nursing: The Actualiza%on of Poten%al for Therapeu%c Human Field Interac%on. As a prototype in this country, the course was very popular, and many other schools imported it because of the pres&ge of New York University.

3 There were several reasons that Therapeu&c Touch became readily accepted. As a prac&ce, it appeared natural and non- invasive; it closely resembled the Chris&an prac&ce of hands- on- healing. Furthermore, in its presenta&on, it appeared to have scien&fic valida&on.

4 Therapeu&c Touch Defined One might ask, Exactly, what is Therapeu&c Touch? According to one of its founders, Dolores Krieger, Therapeu&c Touch is a contemporary interpreta&on of several ancient healing prac&ces. These prac&ces consist of learned skills for consciously or sensi&vely modula&ng human energies (Krieger 1993, 11).

5 It allegedly brings allevia&on of pain and psychosoma&c maladies, facilitates the body s innate healing ability, and provides the sensa&on of relaxa&on. It is mediated through a type of indirect laying on of hands.

6 According to nurse prac&&oner Kevin Courcey: Therapeu&c Touch was developed in the early 1970 s by Dolores Krieger RN, a professor of nursing. Krieger and co- founder Dora Kunz stated that the human body is kept alive and vital by a force called prana (a Sanskrit term meaning vital force ) and that this energy flows around and through the body and is channeled by chakras, a system of non- physical energy centers in the body

7 Current prac&ce is based on the assump&on that the physical body is surrounded by an energy field that trained prac&&oners can detect, assess, and manipulate, and that imbalances in this energy field result in illness or pain, which Therapeu&c Touch can treat.( 2000, n.p.)

8 It is interes&ng to note that in much of the literature wri]en by Chris&ans who researched Therapeu&c Touch, it was described as a form of psychic or occult healing which was designed to manipulate invisible life energies that were out of balance in the human energy field (Reisser, Reisser, and Weldon 1988; Gumpretcht 1988; Reisser, Mabe, and Verlarde, 2001).

9 While some might take offense at the term psychic, there was much in the early founda&on of Therapeu&c Touch in terms of Krieger s associates and mentoring to lend credence to the label. One such mentor was Dora Kunz.

10 Krieger credited the technique of laying- on of hands to her mentor Dora Kunz. According to Sharon Fish (1995) in Therapeu&c Touch: Healing Science or Psychic Midwife, Kunz was a self- proclaimed psychic and a past president of the Theosophical Society,an organiza&on commi]ed to promo&ng ancient religions and occult ideologies (31).

11 Krieger pointed out that Kunz was: born with a unique ability to perceive subtle energies around living beings. From the &me she was a child, she studied the func&on and control of these energies under the tutelage of Charles W. Leadbeater, one of the great seers (occul%sts) of the twen%eth century

12 Through the years, she has studied these abili&es in depth so that they have become like a fine instrument in her hands which she can turn on or off at will. (4)

13 One other mentor that helped to crystallize Krieger s ideology was Martha Rogers, an influen%al nurse theorist and former dean at New York University. Rogers developed a conceptual model that described human beings as an evolving four- dimensional energy field. From that model came a belief that all humans possessed a human energy field that could be manipulated to improve health.

14 The existence of this human energy field was never proven. Nevertheless, Rogers beliefs produced a genera&on of students who developed an appe&te for the occult (Fish, 1995). Fish observed that these students studied such subjects as clairvoyance, precogni&on, Eastern mys&cism, and out- of- body experiences.

15 Krieger (1979) admi]ed that she honed her skills by studying yoga and Ayuvedic (Indian), Tibetan, and Chinese medicine. It was from her study of Eastern medicine that she came to believe that prana (Indian for life energy) could be transferred from one individual to another through energy transmi]ers called charkas

16 Both Ankerberg and Weldon (1991) concluded: Therapeu&c Touch was developed as a result of one occul&st, Dora Kunz, teaching a method of psychic healing to a willing student named Dolores Krieger. Krieger s addi&onal research into Eastern mys&cal tradi&ons and the occult refined the prac&ce.

17 Because what Krieger learned was a form of psychic healing, Therapeu%c Touch should be labeled as such and not passed off as a scien%fic medicine and a form of true divine spiritual healing. (394)

18 If the observa&on made by Ankerberg and Weldon was true, how was it possible that Therapeu&c Touch con&nued to be prac&ced, even by Chris&ans? What Therapeu&c Touch supporters did over the last 25 years was to atempt to validate this prac%ce using science. (randy s emphasis)

19 There were many studies conducted to show the efficacy of Therapeu&c Touch. The major claims of the studies were that Therapeu&c Touch was effec&ve in wound healing, pain reduc&on, and relief of stress and anxiety.

20 However, nurse theorist Myra E. Levine (1995) in the American Journal of Nursing gave an early cri&que of Krieger s research. She commented: The pretense of the healers that they perform scien&fic therapies is unconscionable. In our struggle to achieve academic recogni&on as a profession, we simply can t afford to indulge in this kind of charlatanism

21 . Therapeu&c Touch challenges the validity of modern nursing research, teaching and prac&ce. If its prac&&oners insist on their healing roles, let them honestly call themselves faith healers and stop claiming they are nurses who heal. (1383)

22 For approximately twenty- five years, science offered a level of immunity for Therapeu&c Touch. However, further research demonstrated that the scien&fic claims were flawed and suspect. In an unpublished work en&tled, Therapeu%c Touch and Human Energy Field Therapies: A Realis0c Evalua0on, O Mathuna (2001) concluded the following:

23 Therapeu&c Touch is not supported by years of controlled clinical studies. While many have been done, the results are inconsistent and onen ambiguous. Certainly, some have produced interes&ng posi&ve results. But many have shown Therapeu&c Touch to be no more beneficial than a placebo (98).

24 What was most disheartening about the research that now invalidated scien&fic claims about Therapeu&c Touch was that, in a postmodern culture, much of the cri&cism fell on deaf and uncri&cal ears.

25 Ankerbeg and Weldon made an astute observa&on in 1991 regarding Therapeu&c Touch, There is li]le doubt that the prac&ce of Therapeu&c Touch is laying the groundwork for the acceptance of more tradi&onal psychic healers in our hospitals (396). Fish concurred by sta&ng, Therapeu&c Touch is also playing midwife, helping bring to birth in nursing a host of spiritually illegi&mate and dangerous prac&ces that include mediumship and more.

26 Those who say they can prac&ce and divorce themselves from its occult associa&ons need to be reminded that apart from the occult, TT would not exist (10).

27 In a li]le more than a decade, their observa&on has come true. One can go to any major hospital in the United States and find health care services that have included the prac&ce of Reiki and a variety of other alterna&ve therapies.

28 Moreover, in some hospitals, it has been possible to find a shaman (medicine man) performing healing rites over a sick pa&ent. Yes, Reiki has made significant impact as a safe, non- invasive healing art, and the numbers of those giving and receiving Reiki has con&nued to grow.

29 In conclusion, the researcher recognizes that postmodern society has embraced and promoted a moral rela&vism. Truth has become what one determines it to be. Those who have prac&ced Reiki believe that they have connected with God s power and his truth about healing.

30 Yet, the words of Isaiah 59:14-16 (AMP) reverberate throughout this study, Righteousness (uprightness and right standing with God) stands far off. For truth has fallen in the street and uprightness cannot enter. Yes, truth is lacking.... And the Lord saw that there was no intercessor (no one to intervene on behalf of truth and right).

31 Source: This material is a direct quote from: Spirits of the Lesser Gods: A Cri&cal Examina&on of Reiki and Christ- centered Healing by Rhonda J. McClenton a 400 page doctoral disserta?on

32 Therapeu&c Touch and Reiki s Non- Chris&an Beliefs 1. Doctrine of Crea&on 2. Doctrine of God s nature 3. Doctrine of &me 4. Doctrine of human being 5. Doctrine of sin Crea&on vs Eternal Ma]er/pantheism Personal vs nonpersonal Linear vs circular freewill vs no freewill; same as God vs not so sin is real vs. only an illusion

33 Therapeu&c Touch and Reiki s Non- Chris&an Beliefs 6. Doctrine of salva&on salva&on is forgiveness of sins, healing, escape from hell vs knowing the truth rather than the illusion that we have separateness and individuality instead of unity

34 Therapeu&c Touch and Reiki s Non- Chris&an Beliefs 7. Doctrine of Jesus incarna&on 8. Doctrine of Jesus Lordship 9. Doctrine of Resurrec&on 10. Doctrine of Second coming historical vs non- historical the way vs the way shower resurrec&on vs reincarna&on reality vs not a reality

35 Therapeu&c Touch and Reiki s Non- Chris&an Beliefs 11. Doctrine of Heaven 12. Doctrine of Judgment 13. Doctrine of Jus&ce 14. Doctrine of imparta&on 15. Doctrine of healing heaven vs nirvana = individuality vs non- individuality judgment vs reincarna&on grace vs Karma comes to/upon us vs is within us or is us Dependent vs not dependent