Wolfgang, I don't think this study used a "control group", but it does test the effectiveness of "placebo" Reiki.

Although the Reiki research in totality supports the anecdotal records, the absence of randomized and placebo-controlled trials precludes the interpretation of the outcomes as resulting from specific effects as opposed to placebo effects plus natural history ... none of the final participants in round 4 (4 breast cancer patients and 4 observers) could differentiate between the identity of placebo and Reiki practitioners.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, it is probably not a popular study within the Reiki communities. It seems to indicate that patients could not differentiate between a treatment given by an "initiated" or "attuned" practitioner and the placebos, who had received basic instruction in Reiki techniques but no "attunements". In short, experimental subjects experienced the same benefits from a Reiki treatment whether it was administered by a placebo or a Reiki practitioner.

THis does not surprise me. It's one of the reasons why I prefer Reiki over Huna. Huna does not employ "secret" symbols or require that students receive "attunments" from a "Master". I know through personal experience that neither symbols nor "attunements" are required to work successfully with life-force energy. This is important, because according to tradition, Reiki Masters can charge up to $10,000 for an attunement to Mastery.

The other reason I prefer Huna over Reiki is that Huna techniques employ the healthiest, most powerful and effective level (or "voltage") of vital life-force energy; in Hawaiian - mana loa, or the "spiritual" level. (Please pardon the non-scientific vernacular used for convience here, in these "chasmatic" times). Techniques like Reiki employ mana mana, or "mental" life-force energy. Mana mana can and does afford beneficial healing effects, but in my experience Reiki techniques can be riskier, and the energy itself less powerful and effective.

daylia