This study aims to integrate the Geomagnetic Field (GMFD), Quantum Field (QFD), and Human Biofield (HBFD) domains as biophysical foundations for an energetic continuum between cosmic forces and human physiology, grounded in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) concepts like Qi and Yin-Yang.
A structured narrative review was conducted. A systematic search of major scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) was performed, employing tailored Boolean queries to combine core keywords and domain specific terminology. Identified studies were systematically screened and categorized by domain (GMFD, QFD, HBFD) and research design, followed by a thematic synthesis to identify convergent mechanisms and biophysical linkages.
Evidence indicates GMFD activity modulates neurophysiological and immune processes, including alpha band desynchronization (p < 0.05), autonomic regulation under ultra-low frequency oscillations (r = 0.46, p < 0.01), and reduced leukocyte counts during disturbances (−17.5 cells/mm³, p < 0.001). Fetal head circumference was affected biphasically (β = 0.04 pre-24 weeks; β = −0.25 post-24 weeks, p < 0.05). However, there is an urgent need for more research with reproducible and reliable methods to consolidate these findings. Quantum processes (biophotons, tunneling) and Biofield Therapies provided complementary mechanisms consistent with Qi’s attributes. The Integration Diagram of Energy Domains (IDED) was formulated based on these syntheses.
The authors concluded that the integration of GMFD, QFD, and HBFD offers an innovative biophysical model aligning with TCM principles, supporting its scientific legitimacy and promoting its inclusion in integrative health frameworks.
Where to begin?
The paper proposes a speculative biophysical model linking geomagnetic fields, quantum fields, and human biofields to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) concepts like Qi, but it lacks rigorous scientific validation. The study is framed as a “structured narrative review” with a systematic search, yet it relies on selective thematic synthesis rather than quantitative meta-analysis or risk-of-bias assessment. Reported effects, such as geomagnetic influences on alpha waves (p < 0.05) or leukocytes (−17.5 cells/mm³, p < 0.001), stem from heterogeneous, low-quality studies often plagued by small samples, confounding variables (e.g., stress during geomagnetic storms), and non-reproducible methods—the paper itself urges “more research with reproducible methods.” No PRISMA guidelines are followed, enabling cherry-picking of supportive findings while ignoring contradictory evidence, like null effects in controlled magnetoreception trials.
Geomagnetic field (GMFD) effects on physiology are overstated; while weak links exist to circadian rhythms via cryptochromes in animals, human data show inconsistent, correlational impacts (e.g., r = 0.46 for autonomic changes) without causation or mechanistic clarity. Quantum field (QFD) invocations (biophotons, tunneling) misapply fringe quantum biology concepts—biophotons are ultra-weak emissions with no proven regulatory role, and biological quantum effects (e.g., in photosynthesis) do not scale to macroscopic “Qi” phenomena. Human biofield (HBFD) remains pseudoscientific; therapies like Reiki show placebo-level outcomes in rigorous trials, with no detectable energy fields via standard physics instruments.
Equating TCM’s pre-scientific Qi/Yin-Yang to modern biophysics is pure pseudoscience, projecting metaphysical ideas onto preliminary data without falsifiability. The “Integration Diagram of Energy Domains (IDED)” is an untested schematic, not empirical evidence, echoing historical attempts to scientize homeopathy or chakras that failed under scrutiny. True integration demands randomized controlled trials of TCM interventions outperforming placebos, which they consistently do not for most indications.
This model promotes TCM’s “scientific legitimacy” prematurely, risking integration into health frameworks without efficacy proof. It exemplifies “quantum woo”—vague physics jargon to lend credibility to unverified claims—while biofield research faces preclinical challenges like poor reproducibility and placebo confounds.
Or, to put it bluntly:
THIS IS BULLSHIT!
18 Responses to Integrating quantum bollocks into a bullshit model of therapeutic nonsense
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
This looks like another pseudoscience paper that should be withdrawn. Shall we have a go?
yes, please
Fine with me, although I understand that this is a preprint for which no peer review may have taken place yet, so I don’t know if retraction is already possible. But debunking this pseudoscientific gibberish should be pretty simple.
Basically, the phenomena described either have never been observed let alone proven in a scientific context (qi, human biofield), or, if real (geomagnetic field, quantum field) have no established link whatsoever with human health, due to a complete lack of meaningful interaction between those fields and biological structures.
This is in stark contrast to e.g. electric and magnetic fields, the effects of which have been known for thousands of years, and for which a highly reliable theoretic framework exists. Our world would not even exist without those fields.
In the words of quantum physicist professor Jim Al-Khalistan: “Let me make this very clear: if you think QM allows for homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ESP etc then you’d better take a proper course in QM”
Dear Dr. Ernst,
I read with interest your recent commentary on our paper, “Integrating energy fields: a biophysical model to support Traditional Chinese Medicine”. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in scholarly discourse, as rigorous debate is essential for the advancement of science. I would like to address the points you raised with the technical precision they deserve, while maintaining the collegial tone that characterizes academic exchange.
You characterize our work as lacking rigorous validation and relying on “selective thematic synthesis.” However, our paper explicitly acknowledges its limitations and calls for further research, a position you yourself cite. In the Abstract, we state: “However, there is an urgent need for more research with reproducible and reliable methods to consolidate these findings.” This is not the language of overreach, but of scientific caution.
Regarding PRISMA guidelines: our review was explicitly framed as a “structured narrative review,” not a systematic review or meta-analysis. The methodological approach, categorizing studies by domain (GMFD, QFD, HBFD) and research design, followed by thematic synthesis, was transparently described. Narrative synthesis is a legitimate methodology for integrating evidence across disparate fields, particularly when the phenomena under investigation span geophysics, quantum biology, and human physiology. The heterogeneity you correctly identify is precisely why we refrained from quantitative meta-analysis, which would have been methodologically inappropriate given the diversity of study designs and outcome measures.
You argue that geomagnetic effects on human physiology are “overstated” and based on “inconsistent, correlational impacts without causation.” Yet our paper presents a balanced assessment that includes both supportive findings and contradictory evidence. We explicitly cite Mattoni et al. (2020), who, after applying surrogate data shuffling correction, found that “the strong effects reported in previous literature might be statistical artifacts of autocorrelation and that, if a genuine relationship exists, its effect size is likely minimal.” This is not cherry-picking; it is responsible scholarship.
The study by Wang et al. (2019) on alpha-band desynchronization in response to geomagnetic rotations employed rigorous experimental controls, including a shielded Faraday cage, and demonstrated ecological selectivity that ruled out alternative transduction mechanisms. The statistical significance (p < 0.05) and the specificity of the response (significant only for magnetically relevant rotations in the Northern Hemisphere, with directional asymmetry) are not easily dismissed as artifacts. The biophysical plausibility is further supported by the presence of biogenic magnetite in human tissues, a mechanism you acknowledge exists in animals but question in humans. The burden of proof now lies in replication, which we explicitly call for.
Your characterization of our quantum biology discussion as "fringe" and "quantum woo" misrepresents both the literature and our cautious framing. Quantum tunneling in mitochondrial electron transport is not speculative; it is a well-established mechanism in bioenergetics. The equation we provide for tunneling probability is standard quantum mechanics. The application to proton and electron transfer in Complex I of the electron transport chain is supported by peer-reviewed literature (Bennett & Onyango, 2021; Cukierman, 2006). This is not "woo", it is biophysics (I wouldn't need to emphasize this to you, sir).
Regarding biophotons: their existence is empirically established, not "fringe." The study by Zhao et al. (2017) on spontaneous photon emission in Chinese medicinal plants (Platycodon grandiflorum, Salvia miltiorrhiza, Lonicera japonica) demonstrated statistically significant correlations between emission intensity and bioactive compound content (total saponins, tanshinone IIA, salvianolic acid B). The paper states: "two-year-old P. grandiflorum roots showed higher photon emission intensity and saponin content compared to one-year-old specimens, which did not even meet Chinese Pharmacopoeia standards." This is not claiming regulatory function, it is documenting a measurable biophysical phenomenon that correlates with clinically relevant biochemical markers.
The question of whether these emissions serve a regulatory role remains open, which is precisely why we present them as "complementary mechanisms consistent with Qi's attributes" rather than definitive proof. We explicitly note that biophotons "can serve as a means of non-local intercellular communication", a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
You assert that the human biofield "remains pseudoscientific" and that biofield therapies "show placebo-level outcomes." Yet we cite the scoping review by Sprengel et al. (2025), which analyzed 353 clinical studies on biofield therapies, including 255 randomized controlled trials. The results: 48.7% reported completely positive outcomes, 26.9% mixed results, and only 20.1% non-significant results. We explicitly acknowledge the limitations: "indicating a heterogeneous evidence landscape with a considerable portion of studies suggesting benefits, but with methodological and reporting limitations that prevent definitive conclusions on efficacy." This is balanced, not promotional.
The study by Yan et al. (2006) on external Qigong demonstrated differential effects on cancer cells versus normal fibroblasts at the molecular level, selective inhibition of Akt and ERK pathways in pancreatic cancer cells, with transient activation in normal cells. This is not placebo; it is mechanistic biochemistry supported by multiple methodologies (caspase-mediated apoptosis detection, DNA fragmentation assays, cell cycle analysis). The Kokubo et al. (2010) study using cucumber slices as biosensors detected anisotropic spatial patterns of metabolic alteration around a practitioner, patterns that did not follow a simple Coulomb field. This does not prove "energy healing," but it does suggest that something measurable is occurring that warrants further investigation.
On the Integration of TCM and Biophysics
You argue that "equating TCM's pre-scientific Qi/Yin-Yang to modern biophysics is pure pseudoscience." This conflates analogy with identity. We do not claim that Qi is photons or electromagnetic fields. Rather, we propose that certain biophysical phenomena, quantized field interactions, bioelectromagnetic coherence, non-local correlations in living systems, offer analogical bridges that may help translate TCM concepts into scientific language. This is made explicit in the Conclusion: "This biophysical model not only reconciles TCM's ancestral knowledge with contemporary science, but also underpins its inclusion in integrative health approaches."
The Taoist cosmogonic framework (Wu Ji → Tai Ji → Yin-Yang) is presented as epistemological context, not as empirical claim. We explicitly distinguish between the philosophical origins and the biophysical correlates. The statement that "photons and their quantized interactions with matter represent a tangible physical counterpart to the concept of Qi" is framed as resonance, not reductionism.
On Falsifiability and the IDED
You criticize the Integration Diagram of Energy Domains (IDED) as an "untested schematic." All scientific models begin as schematics. The IDED generates testable hypotheses: (1) that perturbations in the geomagnetic field will correlate with measurable changes in autonomic function, (2) that biophoton emission from acupuncture points will differ from non-acupuncture points, (3) that quantum coherence effects in biological systems will exhibit scale-invariant properties. These are falsifiable predictions. The diagram is not evidence, it is a framework for organizing evidence and guiding future research.
Conclusion:
Science advances through the iterative process of hypothesis generation, empirical testing, and theoretical refinement. Our paper is an invitation to this process, not a declaration of settled truth. We explicitly state that "the body of evidence is not entirely consistent" and that "more research with reproducible and reliable methods" is needed. We cite contradictory findings. We acknowledge methodological limitations.
The charge of "promoting TCM's scientific legitimacy prematurely" assumes that legitimacy is binary, either proven or pseudoscientific. But science operates on gradients of evidence. The WHO has recognized traditional medicine systems in its strategies; the NIH has funded biofield research; major academic institutions now house integrative medicine departments. This is not uncritical acceptance, it is recognition that phenomena reported across centuries of clinical observation deserve rigorous investigation.
If our model ultimately fails under empirical scrutiny, so be it. That is how science corrects itself. But dismissing it as "quantum woo" without engaging the specific evidence, the explicit caveats, and the falsifiable predictions does a disservice to the very scientific values you champion.
I welcome continued dialogue and would be pleased to discuss specific studies or methodological approaches in greater detail.
With respect and collegiality,
Rick Sá
@Rick Sá
Your article correctly references several basic scientific principles such as the Maxwell equations and quantum field theory. However, you make the huge and fatal mistake of trying to linking these proven scientific principles to unproven pseudoscience.
For instance, you posit a direct link between proven quantum phenomena such as quantum tunneling and quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, and something that you call ‘biofield’, which you also suggest is linked to the concept of ‘qi’.
Now both this supposed ‘biofield’ and ‘qi’ (even though no-one has ever observed them, but let’s ignore that for a moment) must necessarily be macroscopic phenomena, otherwise TCM practitioners would not be able to gauge let alone utilize and/or influence them.
The problem is that the mentioned quantum-physical phenomena are normally only discernible on a subatomic scale, and can only be observed using highly sophisticated experimental setups. As soon as we’re talking about macroscopic systems such as people or trees or even rocks, all those wave functions and tunneling effects and whatnot merge into the macroscopic behaviour that we are familiar with, with no trace of quantum behaviour, and which very notably also lacks any evidence for the existence of ‘biofields’ and ‘qi’.
Don’t get me wrong: quantum-physical phenomena such as quantum wave functions so far provide the best model we have for explaining interactions between elementary particles such as electrons and atoms – but the model is only accurate in the simplest of situations, e.g. where one electron interacts with one atom. And I understand that we don’t even have a complete, accurate quantum model of just one helium atom(*), so it is already foolishness to try and apply a quantum-physical model to complete molecules, consisting of multiple atoms. Anyone claiming to successfully use quantum-physical principles in diagnosing and healing patients is a liar and a charlatan. (Or, of course, and MRI operator, as MRI depends on the quantum phenomenon of nuclear spin.)
*: This 16 page MIT lecture describes the quantum goings-on of just ONE helium atom. Which notably does not interact with anything else much. Just imagine the trillions of pages you’d need to describe what really happens on a quantum level in e.g. a mitochondrial system.
At best, we can use quantum-physical effects such as tunneling to explain certain unexpected chemical and/or quantum-physical phenomena in a particular chemical system. But even if those explanations of a certain biochemical mechanism may be correct, this does not mean that we can simply reverse cause and effect and influence that biochemical mechanism by e.g. poking needles in people or make them perform certain exercises. And no, those quantum-physical explanations also do not mean that ‘biofields’ or ‘qi ‘ are real AT ALL.
You also mention biophotons. Sure, biophotons exist. But they are just byproducts from biochemical reactions, without any other meaning or function. How do I know? Simple: biophotons are emitted within the wavelength range of visible light, but with a many orders of magnitude lower magnitude. Biophotons are detected at a rate of typically between 1 and 1,000 photons per cm² per second. Even the light of just one star of average brightness at a distance of 10 light years has an intensity of easily 1 million photons per cm² per second. Which means that biophotons are almost always completely drowned out by any ambient light. And given the fact that all photons of a particular wavelength, being bosons, are by definition identical, a literal handful of biophotons in a sea of trillions of identical ambient photons can’t possibly have any special effects.
Then there’s your tacit assumption that living creatures are somehow special. They are not. The quantum-mechanical principles that you refer to as being involved in human health and sickness literally apply to everything in the universe. They may govern the way that mitochondria produce energy in living cells, but they also govern in exactly the same way what happens when two rocks collide in space, and minerals in those rocks melt, distort and chemically react in myriads of ways.
If you are not convinced by all this rather detailed information, there is also the greater picture: you try to create a link between all sorts of proven but hard to understand scientific principles on one side, and health on the other side. OK, let’s just assume that qi exists, and has special effects in living creatures, determining health and sickness. Has it ever occurred to you that whatever it is that makes people sick (i.e. causes bad or blocked or whatever ‘not-good’ qi) is beneficial for the other living creature, being the pathogen or parasite? Why would qi favour one life form over another?
And if you still want to argue that it does: congratulations, you have just invented a new religion. BUT NOT SCIENCE.
There are several more science-based reasons why your article is very poor science, and refers to even worse science, but this should be enough already. My friendly and respectful advice to you: go talk to real scientists. You may learn some very important things – about being wrong, for instance.
I receive your reply with the due respect that an academic of your caliber deserves, although I cannot help but notice that your argument, this time, seems to oscillate between epistemological reductionism and the premature disqualification of lines of research that, I suppose, you do not master in depth. Allow me, therefore, to offer a rejoinder that not only addresses your points, but does so with the technical rigor that academic debate demands, and with the “slightly arrogant” conviction that it is science, not tradition, that underpins every line of our article.
First of all, when you write: “You postulate a direct link between proven quantum phenomena, such as quantum tunneling and quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, and something you call a ‘biofield,’ which you also suggest is linked to the concept of ‘qi.'” Here, Mr. Rasker, the mistake is both terminological and conceptual. The term Biofield is not an invention of energy medicine practitioners, but a categorization formally adopted by the National Library of Medicine (USA) to allow science to investigate bioelectric, electromagnetic, and biophotonic phenomena in living organisms without the stigma of traditional language. The definition is clear: it is “a massless field, not necessarily electromagnetic…”. More importantly: biofields are observable and measurable. The work of Prof. Michael Levin (Tufts University) exhaustively documents that resting membrane potentials, transmembrane ionic gradients, and gap junction networks form a “bioelectric computing” system that stores non-genetic patterning information during development and regeneration. Levin demonstrates that “Bioelectric signaling is an autonomous layer of control not reducible to a biochemical or genetic description of the cellular state. The real-time dynamics of bioelectric communication between cells are not fully captured by transcriptomic or proteomic analyses.”
The Biofield hypothesis, as developed by Beverly Rubik, is based on photonic coherence (Fritz-Albert Popp), the ultraweak emission of photons by living systems with non-classical statistics; on dissipative structures (Ilya Prigogine), which demonstrates that living systems are open thermodynamic systems, far from equilibrium; and on bioelectromagnetism (Adey, Liboff, Blackman), in which specific frequency windows in which extremely weak fields modulate cellular physiology.
Furthermore, the association between bioelectricity and cellular health has a historical basis that includes Otto Warburg (Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine in 1931) who demonstrated that tumor cells alter their energy metabolism, with direct implications for mitochondrial redox and bioelectric potential; Albert Szent-Györgyi (Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine 1937) proposed that proteins act as semiconductors and that electron conduction is fundamental to life, and Björn Nordenström (nominated for the Nobel Prize) formulated the theory of “closed biological electrical circuits,” demonstrating that tumor tissues alter local electrical conductivity.
Therefore, when you claim that “no one has ever observed” the Biofield, you are simply ignoring decades of research in bioelectromagnetism, biophotonics, and developmental biology.
References:
Levin M. Endogenous bioelectrical networks store non-genetic patterning information during development and regeneration. J Physiol. 2014 Jun 1;592(11):2295-305. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2014.271940. PMID: 24882814; PMCID: PMC4048089.
Rubik B, Muehsam D, Hammerschlag R, Jain S. Biofield Science and Healing: History, Terminology, and Concepts. Glob Adv Health Med. 2015 Nov;4(Suppl):8-14. doi: 10.7453/gahmj.2015.038.suppl. Epub 2015 Nov 1. PMID: 26665037; PMCID: PMC4654789.
Rubik B. The biofield hypothesis: its biophysical basis and role in medicine. J Altern Complement Med. 2002 Dec;8(6):703-17. doi: 10.1089/10755530260511711. PMID: 12614524.
WARBURG O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956 Feb 24;123(3191):309-14. doi: 10.1126/science.123.3191.309. PMID: 13298683.
Levin M. Bioelectrical approaches to cancer as a problem of the scaling of the cellular self. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2021 Oct;165:102-113. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2021.04.007. Epub 2021 May 4. PMID: 33961843.
Nordenström BE. Impact of biologically closed electrical circuits (BCEC) on structure and function. Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 1992 Oct-Dec;27(4):285-303. doi: 10.1007/BF02691165. PMID: 1286033.
Lucia U, Grisolia G. Thermodynamic Considerations on the Biophysical Interaction between Low-Energy Electromagnetic Fields and Biosystems. Membranes (Basel). 2024 Aug 22;14(8):179. doi: 10.3390/membranes14080179. PMID: 39195431; PMCID: PMC11355948.
Secondly, you write: “The quantum-physical phenomena mentioned are normally only discernible on a subatomic scale… As soon as we start talking about macroscopic systems like people, trees, or even rocks, all these wave functions, tunneling effects, and the like merge into macroscopic behavior.” This argument reveals an incomplete understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and its application to macroscopic systems biological.
The transition from the micro to the macro is not a “disappearance” of quantum physics, but its manifestation through long-range coherence and coherence domains, concepts well established in QFT. The seminal work of Giuliano Preparata and Emilio Del Giudice demonstrated that quantum electrodynamics (QED) predicts the formation of coherence domains in aqueous systems, in which molecules oscillate in phase with the electromagnetic field, creating macroscopic regions (micrometers) of collective quantum behavior. Water, a major component of living systems, is not a mere inert solvent, but an active medium capable of sustaining coherent excitations. Furthermore, Larissa Brizhik and colleagues published a study demonstrating that “The electromagnetic potential can cause the emergence of coherent structures that, given their coherence, openness, and non-linearity, are capable of self-organizing and forming various hierarchical levels of ecosystems. Simultaneously, the electromagnetic potential acts as a physical messenger agent in these coherent structures, reducing the number of independent microstates and implementing the concept of negentropy.” The article by Brizhik et al. establishes that the electromagnetic potential is essential for the self-organization and temporal evolution of ecosystems, providing the mechanism for their non-locality, complexity, and self-consistency. Therefore, its reductionism prevents it from seeing that quantum physics does not disappear in the macrocosm; it reorganizes itself into coherent structures that are precisely the signature of living systems. The human body is not a “rock”; it is a thermodynamically open system, out of equilibrium, with billions of coupled oscillators. Invoking the behavior of rocks colliding in space as an analogy for biological processes is, with all due respect, a disservice to the complexity of life.
References:
Foletti A, Ledda M, Grimaldi S, D’Emilia E, Giuliani L, Liboff A, Lisi A. The trail from quantum electro dynamics to informative medicine. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015;34(2):147-50. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1036073. PMID: 26098527.
Larissa Brizhik, Emilio Del Giudice, Sven E. Jørgensen, Nadia Marchettini, Enzo Tiezzi, The role of electromagnetic potentials in the evolutionary dynamics of ecosystems, Ecological Modelling, Volume 220, Issue 16, 2009, Pages 1865-1869, ISSN 0304-3800, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.04.017.
Thirdly, you write: “We don’t have a complete and accurate quantum model of a single helium atom… it’s already foolish to try to apply a quantum physics model to complete molecules.” Mr. Rasker, this is perhaps the weakest point in your argument. Quantum physics has been successfully applied to complex molecules and biological systems for decades. Ion Cyclotron Resonance (ICR), proposed by Abraham Liboff, is a paradigmatic example. A recent review article (2025) published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences consolidates decades of research on the subject, demonstrating that “The interaction between electromagnetic fields and biological systems has flourished in the last 50 years. Adey and Blackman discovered that specific electromagnetic frequencies affect calcium transport in cells. Liboff introduced the theory of ion cyclotron resonance (ICR), proposing a specific mechanism for ionic modulation. Preparata and Del Giudice introduced quantum electrodynamics (QED), offering quantum-level explanations that complement classical models.” I suggest that you study the equations of Ion Cyclotron Resonance and Parametric Ion Resonance. The suggestion that “we cannot influence biochemical mechanisms by applying external stimuli” is empirically false. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation (PEMF) for bone consolidation (FDA approved), and magnetic resonance imaging itself are everyday examples of how electromagnetic fields modulate complex biological systems.
References:
Liboff AR. ION cyclotron resonance: Geomagnetic strategy for living systems? Electromagn Biol Med. 2019;38(2):143-148. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2019.1608234. Epub 2019 Apr 27. PMID: 31032646.
Greco A. Resonant Convergence: An Integrative Model for Electromagnetic Interactions in Biological Systems. Int J Mol Sci. 2025 Dec 31;27(1):423. doi: 10.3390/ijms27010423. PMID: 41516294; PMCID: PMC12785707.
Fourthly, Mr. Rasker wrote, “Even if explanations of a particular biochemical mechanism are correct, this does not mean that we can simply reverse cause and effect and influence that biochemical mechanism, for example, by giving people injections or making them perform certain exercises.” Here, Mr. Rasker, you make an elementary logical error by confusing the direction of inference with the possibility of intervention. Experimental science operates precisely on this reasoning: if we identify that a phenomenon A (e.g., If an electromagnetic field modulates a process B (e.g., gene expression), we can and should test whether the controlled application of A produces predictable changes in B. This is exactly what the literature documents. The study by Jeremy Kent and colleagues (2018) investigated the effects of biofield therapy (Reiki) on mouse vertebral disc cells. The results demonstrated: “Reiki significantly increased post-treatment photon emission from cells compared to pre-treatment and sham (p < 0.05). Real-time PCR showed increased expression of collagen II and aggrecan (p < 0.05). We present a means of quantifying biofield therapy by measuring post-treatment photon emission, concomitantly demonstrating the effect of Reiki on the anabolic healing response." This is not an isolated case. Preclinical literature on biofield therapies includes dozens of rigorously controlled in vitro studies demonstrating modulation of cell proliferation, gene expression, signaling pathways (MAPK, Akt, NF-κB), cytokine production, and oxidative stress. Therefore, your claim that "we cannot influence biochemical mechanisms" is factually incorrect and ignores a substantial body of experimental evidence.
References:
Kent JB. Quantifying Biofield Therapy through Biophoton Emission in a Cellular Model. J Sci Explor [Internet]. 2020 Sept 15 [cited 2025 Nov 2];34(3):434–54. Available from: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1691
Yang P, Jiang Y, Rhea PR, Conway TL, Chen D, Gagea M, et al. Human Biofield Therapy and the Growth of Mouse Lung Carcinoma. Integr Cancer Ther [Internet]. 2019;18:1534735419840797. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735419840797
Yang P, Rhea PR, Conway T, Nookala S, Hegde V, Gagea M, et al. Human Biofield Therapy Modulates Tumor Microenvironment and Cancer Stemness in Mouse Lung Carcinoma. Integr Cancer Ther [Internet]. 2020; 19:1534735420940398. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735420940398
Cohen L, Delorme A, Cusimano A, Chakraborty S, Nguyen P, Deng D, et al. Examining the effects of biofield therapy through simultaneous assessment of electrophysiological and cellular outcomes. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2024;14(1):29221. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79617-3
Bai XM. A Preliminary Study of the Effects from Different Sources of Qi on Telomeres. Biomed J Sci Tech Res [Internet]. 2021;33(2):25683-25686. Available from: doi: 10.26717/BJSTR.2021.33.005374
(Continues)
(Continued)
Fifthly, you mention “Biophotons exist, but they are merely byproducts of biochemical reactions, without any other meaning or function… They are obscured by any ambient light.” This objection reveals a lack of knowledge of the biophotonic literature of the last four decades. The work of Fritz-Albert Popp and colleagues demonstrated that biophotonic emission 1) Is not random: it presents a non-classical statistical distribution (coherence); 2) Is specific to the physiological state: it varies with the cell cycle, stress, and carcinogenesis; 3) Is biologically relevant: it mediates intercellular communication in bacterial, plant, and animal systems.
A recent study by Mould et al. (2024) investigated non-chemical communication between isolated mitochondria: “We found that mitochondria in a cuvette stressed by an electron transport chain inhibitor alter the respiration of mitochondria in an adjacent, but chemically and physically separated cuvette, significantly decreasing the rate of oxygen consumption compared to the control (p < 0.0001). Our results support the existence of non-chemical signaling between isolated mitochondria. The experimental design suggests that non-chemical communication is light-based." This study is particularly important because it used mitochondria, not intact cells; It rigorously controlled for chemical contamination; It demonstrated dependence on the presence of ambient light; It showed specificity: the effect depended on the origin of the mitochondria (cancerous vs. non-cancerous).
As for your argument that biophotons would be "obscured by ambient light": this is a fundamental conceptual error. Biophotons do not need to compete with ambient light to perform a biological function, because living systems operate in a regime of optical shielding (tissues absorb and scatter external light) and threshold detection (receptors can respond to extremely low intensities if tuned in frequency and phase). The human eye detects isolated photons; why couldn't cellular systems?
Furthermore, the fact that photons are bosons and identical does not imply that a set of photons cannot carry information. The information is in the modulation (temporal, spectral, correlation), not in the absolute intensity. Radio telescopes detect signals from stars billions of light-years away not by intensity, but by the temporal correlation and pattern of the signal. When you mention "All photons of a given wavelength, being bosons, s"By definition identical, a handful of biophotons in a sea of trillions of identical ambient photons cannot have any special effect."
Mr. Rasker, this argument reveals a confusion between quantum identity (photons are indistinguishable) and signaling function (systems can distinguish signals by other characteristics). The identity of photons does not imply that all photons of the same wavelength carry the same information. Information can be encoded in emission time (temporal correlations), phase (coherence), polarization, direction of propagation, photon statistics (Poissonian vs. non-Poissonian).
Furthermore, biophotons do not all have the same wavelength. Biophotonic emission covers a spectral range (200–800 nm) with characteristic peaks associated with specific biomolecules. Tsuchida and Kobayashi (2020) demonstrated that biomolecules present in human skin (phospholipids, elastin, melanin) emit biophotons with distinct spectral signatures when excited by UVA radiation.
References:
Mould RR, Kalampouka I, Thomas EL, Guy GW, Nunn AVW, Bell JD. Non-chemical signalling between mitochondria. Front Physiol [Internet]. 2023 Sept 22 [cited 2025 Oct 3]; 14:1268075. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1268075
Tsuchida K, Iwasa T, Kobayashi M. Imaging of ultraweak photon emission for evaluating the oxidative stress of human skin. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2019; 198:111562. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2019.111562
In Sixth and lastly, when you describe, "There is your tacit assumption that living beings are somehow special. They are not. The principles of quantum mechanics to which you refer… apply literally to everything in the universe." Restricting this to human beings, since this is the subject of our debate, the increase in UPEs with focused intent compared to spontaneous UPEs has been demonstrated in the research below:
Joines WT, Baumann SB, Kruth JG. Electromagnetic emission from humans during focused intent. J Parapsychol. 2012;76(2):275-94. Available from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://emmind.net/openpapers_repos/Nonlocality_Fields/Nonlocal_Mind/EM_Active/2012_Electromagnetic_Emission_from_Humans_during_Focused_intent).pdf
Haraguchi S, Kotake J, Chen W, Parkhomtchouk DV, Zhang T, Yamamoto M. Biophoton Change by Mental Concentration. J Int Soc Life Info Sci. 2001 Sep;19(2):373-80. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18936/islis.19.2_373
Mr. Rasker, you conclude your reply with a paternalistic admonition: "go talk to real scientists". Allow me to suggest, with all due respect, that the reverse approach might be more productive. Each of these researchers, "real" scientists with publications in high-impact journals, could clarify that the investigation of subtle phenomena in living systems is not "religion," but the most advanced frontier of contemporary biophysics.
Our article does not "promote" TCM as revealed truth. It proposes an integrative, evidence-based biophysical model that offers conceptual bridges between ancestral traditions and contemporary science. The model is falsifiable: it generates testable predictions about correlations between geomagnetic activity and physiology, about optical properties of meridians, about the effects of coherent fields in cellular systems. If these predictions fail rigorous testing, the model will be abandoned or modified. This is science. What is not science is discarding entire lines of research based on epistemological biases and selective reading of the literature. With academic consideration and the conviction of someone who prefers the debate of evidence to the monopoly of interpretation,
Rick Sá.
@Rick
I’ll just keep it short:
Biophoton emission may be non-random in that it is associated with certain chemical and physiological processes and states, but there is no good evidence for any coherence.
Also see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022231315001568
This is nothing special, and even to be expected: biophotons are probably linked to certain classes of chemical reactions involving ROS, and these happen more often in highly active and/or stressed cells.
This is nonsense. There is no credible evidence at all for this ‘intercellular communication’, just unproven claims and musings. There is not even a good, credible hypothesis for a receiver mechanism for these highly elusive photons. There is no communication without a receiver – and, in this case, this receiver must be both extremely sensitive as well as very selective in ways that so far have never been seen in physics.
To put it a different way: what you claim here would, if actually found to be true, upset major areas of physics, biology and medicine. Despite a century of biophoton research, nothing of the kind has happened, which tells me that these claims should be considered unproven, and even pseudoscientific.
Honestly, it doesn’t seem like a conversation on equal terms, so I’ll leave here the references that refute all these claims.
References:
Mould RR, Kalampouka I, Thomas EL, Guy GW, Nunn AVW, Bell JD. Non-chemical signalling between mitochondria. Front Physiol [Internet]. 2023 Sept 22 [cited 2025 Oct 3]; 14:1268075. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1268075
Pospíšil P, Prasad A. Biofield in neural communication: A review and conceptual framework. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2026 Feb 20;200:31-40. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2026.02.005. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41724272.
Zarkeshian P, Kergan T, Ghobadi R, Nicola W, Simon C. Photons guided by axons may enable backpropagation-based learning in the brain. Sci Rep. 2022 Dec 1;12(1):20720. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24871-6. PMID: 36456619; PMCID: PMC9715721.
Mayburov S (2012) Photonic Communications and Information Encoding in Biological Systems. Lebedev Institute of Physics. doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1205.4134.
Sá R, Pignataro Neto G. Advancing biophysics in energy-based clinical interventions: a narrative review. Explore (NY). 2025 Jul-Aug;21(4):103198. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2025.103198. Epub 2025 Jun 20. PMID: 40570749.
Sá, Rick (2025). Energy Biocommunication mediated by Ultraweak Photon Emission: A Methodological Framework for Detection, Correlation, and Validation. Optica Open. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.1364/opticaopen.30734750.v1
Creath K, Schwartz GE. What biophoton images of plants can tell us about biofields and healing. J Sci Explor. 2005;19(4):531-50.
It’s quite simple: physics does not support pseudoscientific concepts such as ‘biofields’ and ‘qi’ and ‘quantum’ and ‘energy’ phenomena in the way that you present it. Biophotons are real, but there is no good evidence that they can have a signalling function(*).
TCM is an obsolete, completely ineffective system of medicine – with an absolutely horrible historic track record. Anyone who takes TCM or its underlying principles seriously as a viable system of medicine can’t be very knowledgeable in medicine, science or history.
*: Have you actually read (and understood) the papers that you refer to? Because the very first paper (Rhys Mould et al.) is about observed changes in mitochondrial oxygen consumption, apparently through non-chemical signalling – BUT WITHOUT ACTUALLY MEASURING ANY BIOPHOTONS AT ALL. It is ASSUMED that the observed effects were caused by communication through (bio)photons.
Also noteworthy is that the measured effect is absolutely tiny: 0.002% difference in oxygen consumption between the two populations. And when I look up the specifications of the oxygen sensor they used, it would appear that this difference is beyond the sensor’s capabilities: the maximum accuracy is ±0.02% at very low oxygen concentrations. Under normal atmospheric conditions (which I believe apply here), the accuracy drops to 0.2%, or 100 times what Mould claims he actually measured. So I’m afraid that Mould’s measurements (and thus his results) are no good.
Several other, similar papers on the subject that I could find also claim to present evidence of biophoton communications, but again without actually detecting or measuring any of those photons. This is Bad Science.
And if someone actually did measure those biophotons (e.g. Mayburov), then the best they could show was a correlation between certain emission parameters (e.g. emission frequency) and a biological phenomenon such as embryo development speed. However, such a correlation is not the same as a proven causal relationship.
So no, I don’t think your article has much merit in a scientific sense.
I do feel a bit sorry for you, as you must have put quite a bit of work into it, and also paid a significant amount of money to have it published.
You know, this conversation reminds me how skepticism devoid of refutation evidence becomes merely effortless opinions. But I will be kind here and deliver something good. Unlike you, Hollaender and Claus (1937) rolled up their sleeves to disprove Gurwitsch’s mitogenic radiation phenomenon. Incidentally, Hollaender and Claus’s (1937) research, riddled with flaws and limitations, was enough for research on this topic to receive government funding.
First, I must agree with your claim that classical physics does not support pseudoscientific concepts about biofields; after all, it is in biophysics and quantum biology that biofields can be included in their scopes.
Your statement that “there is no solid evidence that biophotons can have a signaling function” is a clear indication that you are operating outside your area of expertise, making mistakes that betray the novice venturing into unknown territory. The study by Sun, Wang & Dai (2010) offers direct, replicable, and methodologically robust evidence of biophotonic conduction in neural fibers, with pharmacological controls (blue, green, and white) at one end of motor and sensory spinal nerve roots in rats resulting in a significant increase in biophotonic activity at the other end (p < 0.01 for motor with red and white light; p < 0.05 for sensory with infrared and white). This effect was observed with the ends physically separated, demonstrating conduction along the neural fiber. Sun Y, Wang C, Dai J. Biophotons as neural communication signals demonstrated by in situ biophoton autography. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2010;9(3):315-22. doi: 10.1039/b9pp00125e
Regarding TCM, you are completely mistaken. Dr. Youyou Tu received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 for the discovery of the antimalarial properties of artemisinin, a compound derived from Artemisia annua, a plant used in Traditional Chinese Medicine for over 2,000 years. The Virtual Health Library (VHL) specializing in TCIM, created on the initiative of PAHO/WHO, currently contains more than 1.5 million bibliographic references and more than 2,000 systematic reviews grouped into 28 evidence maps, evaluating the effects of more than 300 interventions on outcomes such as depression, anxiety, pain, hypertension, diabetes, and cancer. Hoenders R, Ghelman R, Portella C, Simmons S, Locke A, Cramer H, Gallego-Perez D, Jong M. A review of the WHO strategy on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine from the perspective of academic consortia for integrative medicine and health. Front Med. 2024;11:1395698. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1395698
When you ask me, “Did you actually read (and understand) the articles you are referring to?” While your criticism of Mould’s study is partially correct regarding the absence of direct photon measurement in that specific experiment, the experimental design was conceived precisely to test the hypothesis of non-chemical communication. The fact that the authors interpret the results as suggestive of light-mediated communication is a conclusion based on rigorous control of chemical variables, not an unfounded "presumption." In their statement that "the 0.002% difference is beyond the sensor's capability," they ignore basic principles of experimental statistics. The accuracy of a sensor (±0.02% at low concentrations) does not determine the limit of detection of mean differences in experiments with multiple repetitions and adequate statistical analysis. The reported p-value < 0.0001 indicates that the probability of the result being due to chance is less than 1 in 10,000.
But I shouldn't comment on any of this, because according to you, there wasn't even any evidence before. This strategy is very common in academic debates. First, "show me the evidence, because there isn't any." Then, “But the effects are not significant.”
Is your “good science”? Hmmm! Better than that of Doctors Popp, Mayburov, and Pospísil. Then, please show everyone your data.
Regarding Mayburov's research, you simply ignored the fact that the study manipulates the independent variable (exposure to optical contact between samples), observes measurable biological outcomes (synchronization of development or arrest of development), uses controls (samples without optical contact, measured background), demonstrates specificity (the effect depends on the age difference between the samples), establishes a dose-response relationship (the signal structure, interval between pulses, varies systematically with the stage). This is not "mere correlation," it is experimental evidence of photon-mediated communication encoding biologically relevant information, published by a researcher from the Lebedev Institute of Physics (one of the most prestigious physics institutions in Russia).
Your statements are based almost exclusively on personal opinions disguised as skepticism, without offering counter-evidence or re-analysis. statistical or methodological critiques Specifics supported by literature. Regarding opinions, there's a quote from José Saramago that fits you well: "The tragedy is not that people have opinions, but that they have them without knowing what to talk about."
“Artemisia annua, a plant used in Traditional Chinese Medicine for over 2,000 years” – BUT NOT FOR MALARIA!
Great, Einstein!
@Rick
I don’t have access to the full article, but what I read in the abstract/preview already raises questions.
“We found that different spectral light stimulation (infrared, red, yellow, blue, green and white) at one end of the spinal sensory or motor nerve roots resulted in a significant increase in the biophotonic activity at the other end.”
I understand that the stimulation took place using external light sources, not biophotons. So an excited nerve cell produces biophotons – OK, nothing new there.
“Such effects could be significantly inhibited by procaine (a regional anaesthetic for neural conduction block) or classic metabolic inhibitors.”
This would suggest that the mode of transmission of this light-stimulated activity was a normal neural action potential, not photons. After all, procaine does not physically alter the structure of a nerve cell, it just blocks the influx of sodium ions, prohibiting an action potential from propagating. This should have no effect on any optical transmission characteristics. Yet the researchers make this strange claim:
“… suggesting that light stimulation can generate biophotons that conduct along the neural fibers, probably as neural communication signals. The mechanism of biophotonic conduction along neural fibers may be mediated by protein-protein biophotonic interactions.”
Don’t you see the contradiction here?
To me, this does not look like robust evidence of biophoton communication or biophoton transmission at all. It only shows that nerve cells a) can be triggered by means of ordinary light, that b) signal transmission takes place as a normal action potential, and that c) an action potential may lead to increased production of biophotons at an endpoint. Also note the use of words such as “suggesting” and “probably” and “may”, which do not exactly express much confidence in what they claim.
However to their credit, they do appear to have developed a novel way of detecting biophotons, which is quite an interesting feat. But they did not demonstrate that those biophotons actually transferred information, only that they were created in stimulated nerve cells.
If I had nothing else to do, I’d take a much more in-depth look at the literature. It absolutely is an interesting field of research – but nothing I have seen so far convinced me of any special optical communication going on. And conversely, there are several reasons why I doubt very much if the claimed mechanism is even viable in theory.
(And oh, I do have experience working on experimental setups using optical chips and laser interferometry for the detection of traces of volatile organic compounds. In particular, we found out all the things that can go wrong, causing misleading measurements and making people pull their hair out after months of hard work … Especially the effects of very tiny temperature differences on sensitive systems are easily overlooked.)
This “dirty work” was already done 13 years ago, in DOI: 10.1186/1478-811X-11-87.
Tong (2024) reignites the topic: “Conclusive evidence of intercellular communication facilitated by biophoton signaling is presented, followed by an elaborate interpretation of the potential mechanisms by which biophotons mediate radiation-induced bystander effects (RIBE).” (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmp.2024.06.004)
Up to this point, without fear of error, 90% of your claims have been refuted. I alone have presented the evidence. So, don’t engage in a discussion without time and without evidence.
@Rick
Strange how I see this completely differently: all evidence for biophoton signalling that you referred to so far seems to contain shortcomings, inconsistencies or claims that do not follow from the observations. Most of those articles seem to posit the signalling mechanism as a given, or point to other articles that do so.
But I’ll heed your advice and study the subject more in-depth, if only because I want to understand how its proponents believe that it can work, and how those biophotons must be somehow different from ambient photons (which don’t seem to be able to produce the claimed effects).
In the meantime, you could try and ask a proper quantum physicist what they think of your work and that of others, including claims of coherence in extremely weak photon emissions (< 1000 photons per second per cm²) – which I find very difficult to believe based on sheer numbers alone.
My suggestion:
Would you be so kind to clear all these epistemiological problems with Oxford and Erwin Laszlo of Club of Budapest?
It’s not the first time, that the secular cosmology or metaphysics are legitated by “system science”.
Back to 2003 and Oxford’s The Great Rethinking Prophets Conference Oxford, 2003
Bringing back good known problems with cosmological, metaphysical system science, based on esoteric ideas of Helena Blavatsky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZzv2IS6AlU
It’s the same pattern as 100 years ago.
No wonder that the world is going into “mad” mode aka premodern mode and order of knowledge.
Healing the the whole planet on the base of theosophic Akashic Chronic of Helena Blavatski and sharing this worldview of the 21st century with antroposophic Rudolph Steiner is the worst idea – once again.
It was very weak, that the sceptical movement was behind medicine but did not observe psychology ramping up the well-known order of biosociological = eugenic order of knowledge and society.
Building the “concouisness” of the 21st century with the blavatskian system science of Ervin Laszlo.
Who thaught that european philosophy was not willing to learn anything from history.
But the scientific will to repeat eugenic thinking is endless as Paul Weindling described with his paper about the continuity of eugenics.
Who taught that so many scientist are free of any doubt to ramp up the eugenic thinking figures once again: the regeneration of a population (Italian/Mussolini’s approach), the society as human garden (French Eugenics)