28 Aug 2018
Spiritual healing, sometimes also called intercessory prayer, or distant, faith or psychic healing, is an intriguing subject. It is immensely popular: in the UK, for instance, there are currently about 14,000 registered spiritual healers (about half the number of primary care physicians!) and in the United States, faith healing is among the fastest growing ‘‘alternative’’ treatments.
1. At the same time, it is one of the most implausible of all therapeutic methods. Healers believe that they channel ‘‘energy’’ into their client’s body, which, in turn, promotes healing. Some healers claim that the ‘‘energy’’ is divine. There are, of course, numerous problems with this concept. For instance the healing ‘‘energy’’ seems to defy qualification and, even if it existed, it is unclear how nonspecific ‘‘energy’’ can enhance specific self-healing processes within the body.
Not surprisingly then, the clinical evidence does not suggest that spiritual healing is an effective means of symptom management. A systematic review of 23 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spiritual healing for any type of condition initially documented that the majority of these studies were positive but stated that ‘‘the methodological limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.” 2. An update of this systematic review found 17 further studies, including 9 RCTs, and concluded that ‘‘the majority of the rigorous trials do not support the hypothesis that distant healing has specific therapeutic effects.” 3. Recent studies have been more rigorous and failed to demonstrate significant effects. 4 to 6 In one such trial, 7 patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer experienced a higher complication rate after bypass surgery.
Regardless of the negative evidence, healing continues to be promoted. Several UK government-sponsored documents published by the Prince of Wales’ Foundation for Integrated Health support spiritual healing: 8 to 10 ‘‘The laying on of hands is used for a wide variety of conditions, including reducing side-effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for people with cancer.’’ 9 There are a multitude of reasons why such promotion could be detrimental to patients and health care systems. 11 Healing can be expensive and might divert patients from effective treatments. If it helps some patients through the power of belief, we should remember that treatments that are effective beyond placebo also come with the ‘‘free bonus’’ of a placebo response. We do not need a placebo treatment for generating a placebo response. Most important, spiritual healing might promote the belief in a supernatural healing ‘‘energy,’’ which undermines rationality in general. In turn, this has the potential to boost pseudoscience, creationism, or worse.11
But more recent reports have raised serious concerns about the validity of some of the primary data on spiritual healing. In several cases, the published evidence seems to be less than reliable. One trial reporting positive effects of healing in acquired immune deficiency syndrome patients 12 has come under suspicion. When its primary findings failed to generate a positive result, the impression of a positive result was apparently created through ‘‘data dredging,’’ a fact which was not disclosed in the original article. 13
More serious concerns have arisen relating to an entire series of trials. Daniel P. Wirth has authored at least 20 healing studies, 14 more than any other researcher in this field. We and others have repeatedly attempted to contact Wirth, invariably without success. An ‘‘absence of adequate documentation that the healing studies took place as described’’ was recently noted in relation to Wirth’s research by his former supervisor. 15 Moreover ‘‘numerous unanswered questions regarding the actual nature of the listed co-authors’ involvement in these studies’’ and ‘‘the possibility that these foundational studies are without scientific basis’’ were noted. 15 Meanwhile, Wirth has been convicted of an unrelated crime; in 2004 he pleaded guilty to mail and bank fraud. 15 Wirth’s coauthor and long-time collaborator (J.S. Horvath) was charged in relation to his research for practicing medicine without a license and convicted of identity theft and other crimes.14 Solfvin, et al. described in detail how some of Wirth’s and Horvath’s activities imply that at least some of these data are fabricated. 14
The results of a multicenter healing study (Wirth acted as its second author) have recently suggested that distant healing increases the success rate of fertility treatment. 16 This trial is now suspected to be the product of scientific misconduct.17,18 One of its authors (R.A. Lobo) withdrew his name after the article was published. 14 So far, none of the journals that published Wirth’s research has withdrawn his articles,19 and the affair has
been called ‘‘a major scandal in the history of science.’’2
Spiritual healing continues to be promoted despite the absence of biological plausibility or convincing clinical evidence, and the presence of considerable risks. Several apparently positive studies have come under suspicion. Given these circumstances, it seems time to turn a page and state clearly that there is no good evidence to show that these methods work therapeutically and plenty to demonstrate that they do not.