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

Daylia: that is because there is not much difference between a Reiki attuned person, and a non Reiki attuned person. I am a Master/Teacher of higher in five different forms of Reiki (Karuna. Magnussa Phoenix, Tibetan, Usui Shiki, and Usui Shiki Ryoho)

Both the attuned and non attuned persons were transferring mental lifeforce energy through the minor chakras in the palms of the hands. The Chinese Qigong masters called these areas Laogong.

There are only two differences.

1. the attuned persons had been doing healing for a while, and was able to transmit more energy.

2. the attuned person had techniques to still and focus the mind.

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

You prefer Reiki over HUNA? IMHO HUNA beats Reiki hands down for many reasons.

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.

Ah you placed them in the wrong order in the paragraph earlier.

You are correct. Mana loa is MUCH more powerful than mana mana, and Qigong, Reiki, Actualism, Silva Mind Control, Seichim, etc only use the basic mana or mana mana (mental lifeforce energy).

Dear Mr Two Bears:

Mack: I am a simple guy. Just use the name Two Bears. I do not care for formality for two reasons.

1. it is often insincere
2. it is not necessary

You said: Mack: Are some or even MOST so called mediums frauds? this could be; but does NOT mean that ALL mediums are frauds.

It means that Houdini looked very hard and found none who were genuine among some of the most fameous mediums in history. Nobody can check them all.

True. I never said it would be easy.

You also said: The way to test mediums is to go to a medium, and then after the paranormal event; examine what is in the room for ways of fakery.

This doesn't work. The Fox sisters who, I believe, were the first modern spirit mediums confessed that their 'spirit rapping' was produced with clickers strapped to their thighs. Would you ask your mediums to strip?

There is no need to have them strip; but someone could pat the medium down for hidden devices.

Mack: I have seen some bizarre things from the paranormal in my life; and there was no medium present; and mant of them were outside; so I can only accept them and go on.

I will NEVER forget what happened in one pipe ceremony that happened on the first weekend of December two years ago.

You misunderstand the process. All paradign shifts come from some young researcher/s making extraordinary claims. For example, consider quantum theory. It eliminates cause and effect at the quantum level. A form of statistical analysis is used instead. This is what Einstein was referring to when he said "God does not play dice with the universe."

If a young scientist cares about his reputation, and wishes to be gainfully employed; will not walk out on a thin limb like that.

Pretty much the same thing happened to me when I was in the Computer Anti-Virus field 10 years ago.

InVircible by NetZ computing claimed to

1. Detect ALL viruses
2. Remove ALL viruses
3. Repair itself if Invircible became infected.

At this time; most tests of Anti-Virus software tested the viruses by scanning, and InVircible had a scanner; but detected the unknown viruses via generic detection methods (detecting viruses by detecting the change made by viruses when the viruses infected the boot sector, Master Boot Record, or files.

I tested Anti-Virus software (both scanners, and generic detectors, and published a list of recommended scanners (software that detected a minimum of the viruses in my collection, and generic virus detectors that passed my tests.

People asked me to evaluate InVircible, and I did, and I immediately started finding security holes big enough to fly a jumbo jet through.

After I reported the security faults (it only took 9 viruses to show that all three claims were full of hot air), the author, and his U.S. distributor attacked me. they repeatedly threatened me with law suits, and degraded into a shouting match; but I refused to back down an inch.

This war went on for two years, and I tested four different versions of InVircible, and not ONE of the well respected independent virus researchers had the courage to duplicate the tests I had performed and either stand with me or against me.

After more than two years; Vesselin Bontchev was asked to evaluate InVircible, and he wrote a paper more than 40 pages in length, and he acknowledged Bill Lambdin (me) in the document for my earlier research to identify security holes in the program.

This is why I do not trust scientists to tell the truth about research into paranormal events.

I suggest you do as I do. There are a host of on-line dictionaries and glossaries. Of course, it's easier to do with the linux multiple desktops. BTW, I don't have any degrees, either.

Mack: there is no need to use such words, and I am puttering around on a 737 MHZ Celeron processor running Windows ME (a slow processor, and a flaky operating system does neither gives one speed or stable environment.

ANL - 2B