“energy” healing
I came across an interesting paper entitled “The Ethics of Tawas and Other Rituals in Medical Practices“. Here is its abstract:
Rituals in medical practice have either been seen as an anthropological aspect of current biomedical processes or as a pre-scientific aspect of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In either tendency, the literature has since failed to account for these rituals as rituals—conveyors of meaning, expressions of identity, and even as a rite of passage from illness to wellness. As an alternative to current discussions, this paper presents the case study of tawas, a diagnostic ritual from Philippine traditional medicine that determines personalistic and mystical causes of illnesses. As a non-intrusive procedure, tawas involves incantations and some ritual objects, e.g., rice, candle, axe, etc., that do not pose any direct harm nor benefit to the patient. While complete reliance on tawas at the expense of proper medical procedures could harm patients, the very ritual of tawas itself occupies a limbo within non-beneficence and non-maleficence. Following a Wittgensteinian perspective of treating rituals as meaning-laden human activities, this paper argues that rituals like tawas, much like other rituals embedded in biomedical practices, should be understood as rituals and not as empirical cures, thereby allowing their tolerance in medical practice in general.
The author seems to advocate for the cultural integration of traditional practices like tawas into a broader medical framework. They categorize tawas not as a physiological intervention, but define it as a conveyor of meaning. By addressing the “meaning-laden” aspect of illness, the ritual may address the psychological and social dimensions of a patient’s health, even if it has no effect on their physical pathology.
It is claimed that, since tawas involves non-intrusive objects (candles, rice), it is physically benign. At the same time it is acknowledged that “complete reliance” on tawas could harm patients. From a clinical safety standpoint, the “limbo” is only maintained if the ritual is strictly adjunctive rather than alternative.
The text uses a Wittgensteinian perspective, focusing on rituals as expressions rather than theories. Modern neuroscience suggests that the “ritual” of care—the white coat, the focused attention, the diagnostic process—triggers real neurobiological changes (e.g., dopamine and endorphin release). Aacknowledging the symbolic healing power that rituals have on patient anxiety and the “meaning response,” which can objectively improve health outcomes by reducing cortisol and stress.
The author identifies tawas as a diagnostic ritual which might well be the most contentious point. In science, a “diagnosis” must be reliable and valid. Tawas clearly fails the scientific criteria for validity. The author’s defence is that tawas shouldn’t be judged by those criteria at all. While this might be philosophically sound, in a clinical setting, a “mystical diagnosis” must conflict with a biological one, potentially leading to patient non-compliance with life-saving treatments.
This study was conducted to determine the effect of Reiki performed on children with leukemia between the ages of 5-7 years on pain, vital signs, oxygen saturation, and quality of life. It was a double-blind, pre-test-post-test randomized controlled experimental study. The research sample consisted of 66 children with leukemia aged 5-7 years who were hospitalized in pediatric oncology wards of a university hospital between December 2020 and November 2021. The balanced block randomization method was used for randomization. The data were collected using Information Form, Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale (W-BPS), Vital Signs Follow-up Form, The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 3.0 Cancer Module. Reiki was performed to the Reiki group for 20-30 min once per day, for 3 consecutive days and pseudo-Reiki was applied to the pseudo-Reiki group by an independent nurse during the same application period.
There was no statistically significant difference in vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, body temperature) and SpO2 values among the groups (p > 0.05). However, both children’s and mothers’ evaluations on days 1, 2, and 3 after the intervention showed that pain scores in the Reiki group were significantly lower than in the pseudo-Reiki and control groups (p < 0.001), and quality of life was significantly higher (child:p < 0.001; mother:p < 0.01) compared to the pseudo-Reiki and control groups.
The authors concluded that Reiki did not affect the vital signs of the children but was effective in reducing pain and increasing the quality of life compared with the pseudo Reiki and control groups. It is recommended that Reiki therapy be used in addition to medical treatment to reduce pain and improve quality of life in children with leukemia aged 5-7 years.
The whole point of having a control group receiving pseudo-Reiki is to control for placebo effects. For this purpose, it is necessary to fool the patients well and make sure that they are unable to tell Reiki from pseudo-Reiki. I would guess – I have no aceess to the full paper – that this was not the case in this study. If I am correct, the positive outcome is likely to be due to expectation of a positive healing effect and unrelated to any specific effect of Reiki.
In any case, it is irresponsible nonsense to recommend Reiki – or any therapy – on the basis of just one positive study. For that one would need several independent confirmations with high quality studies that firmly establish a cause effect relationship. The current study does not fall into that category, and I am not aware of a single trial that does.
Exactly ninety-three years ago, on May 10, 1933, Nazi Germany staged one of its earliest and most symbolic assaults on intellectual freedom. Presented as a spontaneous outburst of student zeal, the book burnings were in fact a carefully orchestrated campaign to “purify” German culture and bring it into line with National Socialist ideology.
The initiative was led by the Deutsche Studentenschaft (DSt), the German Student Union, which by May 1933 had fallen firmly under Nazi control. The ideological direction and media amplification came from Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. At the Berlin bonfire, Goebbels proclaimed that “the era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end,” framing the event as a cultural turning point.
Operationally, the campaign was coordinated by the DSt’s Main Office for Press and Propaganda, under student leader Hans Karl Leistritz (often misattributed in some accounts), while members of the SA and SS ensured order and visibility at the rallies. What unfolded was not a single evening of spectacle but the culmination of a structured four-week programme titled the “Action against the Un-German Spirit.”
The campaign began on April 12 with the publication of twelve theses—deliberately echoing Martin Luther, denouncing “Jewish intellectualism” and calling for a racially defined German literature. Central to the effort were blacklists compiled by librarian Wolfgang Herrmann, identifying works deemed “un-German,” including those classified as “asphalt literature,” a derogatory term for modern, urban, and socially critical writing.
During the burnings, students ritualised the destruction by reciting “fire oaths” (Feuersprüche), each tailored to the author being condemned. When works by Sigmund Freud were thrown into the flames, for example, they denounced the “overvaluation of sexual life,” illustrating how ideological messaging accompanied the physical annihilation of texts.
The targets spanned a wide intellectual spectrum, uniting literary, scientific, and political figures under the label of cultural subversion. Among them were Erich Maria Remarque, condemned for his pacifism; Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg, for their political thought; and writers such as Heinrich Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Kurt Tucholsky, Alfred Döblin, and Stefan Zweig, whose works challenged nationalism or authoritarianism. Even figures like Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud were attacked as representatives of “Jewish science,” while international authors such as Ernest Hemingway and Jack London were included for their perceived ideological nonconformity. The inclusion of Helen Keller, whose social justice writings provoked particular hostility, underscored the breadth and arbitrariness of the purge.
The international response was immediate and forceful. In New York City, more than 100,000 people demonstrated against what was widely described as the “death of the mind,” while organisations such as the American Jewish Congress organised protests and boycotts. In exile, German intellectuals sought to preserve what had been destroyed: in 1934, the Deutsche Freiheitsbibliothek in Paris began collecting copies of banned works to ensure their survival.
The events of May 10 quickly assumed a grim symbolic significance. Heinrich Heine’s earlier warning – “Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people” – proved to be less a metaphor than a prophecy, foreshadowing the far greater crimes that would follow.
When a top journal like PNAS (Procedings of the Nationsl Academy of Science) publishes an article entitled “What’s the science behind acupuncture?“, I must take notice. Here is my take on the (sadly disappointing) effort:
My very short summary of the paper (I do encourange my readers to read it in full)
The article starts from the premise that acupuncture is proven to work, an assumption that – as we will see in a minute – is not based on sound evidence. It describes the evolution of acupuncture from a traditional practice rooted in ancient concepts like “qi” and “meridians” to a modern medical treatment increasingly validated by science. It argues that practitioners like Min Chen are today able to provide evidence-based explanations for their work. While early clinical trials were plagued by the “sham” acupuncture paradox, the text argues that more recent, rigorous studies and technological projects are bridging the gap between Eastern philosophy and evidence-based medicine, suggesting that acupuncture’s effects are physiological realities rather than mere placebo.
My concerns of the paper
The article attempts to bridge the gap between Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and conventional medicine suggesting that several anatomical discoveries “correspond” to ancient meridians. This, however, is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Finding a morphological structure (e.g. fascia) and claiming it represents the meridian system ignores that meridians were conceptualized as functional energetic conduits, not anatomical vessels. Citing an 80% overlap between acupoints and connective tissue planes lacks specificity. Given the ubiquity of connective tissue in the human frame, any randomized point on the body would likely “overlap” with a tissue plane, rendering the “meridian” map a possible exercise in pattern-seeking rather than anatomical discovery.
The paper acknowledges the “most puzzling” finding that sham acupuncture often produces results comparable to “true” acupuncture. This, it would seem to me, invalidates the foundational TCM theory of specific “acupoints” and “meridians” is invalidated. Yet, the article suggests that sham acupuncture is “not a true placebo” because it also triggers biological pathways. If needling anywhere produces an effect, acupuncture is merely a generalized, non-specific neuro-modulatory stimulus.
The article quotes Chen on “harmonizing organ functions” and “regulating qi” as well as researchers referring to “fibroblast activation” and “vagus nerve stimulation”. The author seems to consider both to be true; yet they seem mutually exclusive. Translating metaphysical concepts into physical phenomena does not “validate” the original theory but merely replaces it.
The article employs the opioid crisis to justify the rise of acupuncture. Yes, the need for non-pharmacological pain management is urgent, but clinical necessity does not equate to scientific validity. The text quotes the “lasting benefits” observed in some meta-analyses without discussing the often fatal flaws in these papers. Furthermore, it fails to cite the substantial body of evidence suggesting that acupuncture is not effective. Moreover, it hardly mentions the small effect sizes and hence limited clinical usefulness found in the positive studies.
The final section of the paper essentially rebrands acupuncture as “bioelectronic medicine”. If its mechanism of action is purely the electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve or the release of endogenous opioids, then the TCM concepts are all but superfluous. If a cheap and wearable TENS unit is more or less equivalent, the “meridian” and “qi” myths are obsolete.
In summary, the paper reads, I fear, only marginally better than a Chinese government promotional text – most disappointing for an article published in a journal of high standing. It attempts to preserve the cultural prestige of TCM while stripping it of its internal logic in order to make it compatible with science. For acupuncture to gain a true “scientific footing”, research must, in my view, move beyond finding “tantalizing” correlations. It should address fundamental problems, e.g.:
- As long as we have no convincing proof that acupuncture works beyond placebo, discussions about its mechanisms are futile.
- If qi, acupoints and meridians are illusions and irrelevant for the clinical outcome, then the science is not validating acupuncture but merely re-discovering a well-known non-specific form of peripheral nerve stimulation.
This review was aimed at analyzing the scientific evidence on Reiki intervention as a nursing care strategy for people with cancer. For this purpose, the researchers searched six databases, including primary studies, in Portuguese, Spanish and/or English, about the evidence on the use of Reiki intervention as a care strategy for cancer patients, totaling five publications.
The included studies suggest potential benefits of Reiki intervention, such as pain relief, reduction of physical symptoms (fatigue and insomnia) and improvement in emotional aspects, such as anxiety and stress. However, the results are still limited in terms of methodological robustness and generalizability.
The Brazilian authors concluded that, although the findings indicate beneficial effects of Reiki in people with oncological diseases, there is a limited production of clinical trials aimed at the application of this therapy in clinical nursing practice. Reiki can be considered a complementary strategy in nursing care, as long as it is integrated into an individualized therapeutic plan. It is recommended that studies with greater methodological rigor be carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of Reiki applied by oncology nurses.
The authors explain that “Reiki is a practice that uses the laying on of hands and symbols to channel universal life energy to recharge, realign and rebalance the human energy field. Its objective is to undo energetic blockages that compromise the flow of vital energy, and maintain harmony between the body, mind and spirit.” With just 2 sentences, the authors inply that Reiki has a sound scientific basis which they do not question in their paper at all. Yet phenomena such as live energy, regarging, realigning and rebalancing human energy fields, energetic blockages in the human body, flow of vital energy could not be less scientific. In fact, they are pure fantasy and have no basis in reality.
The authors also explain that 20 % (n=1) of the included studies were qualitative, 20 % (n=1) were quasi-experimental, 20 % (n=1) were reports of professional experience, and 40 % (n=2) consisted of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). On closer scrutiny, none of the RCTs was sufficiently rigorous to allow firm, positive conclusions. In other words, there is no good evidence and the conclusion that Reiki is beneficial for cancer patients is nonsense.
The authors note that, in 2017, with the publication of Ordinance No. 849, of March 27, Reiki was officially included in the Brazilian public health network. In view of the above mentioned lack of plausibility combined with a lack of effectiveness, this inclusion seems wholly irresponsible.
I recently came across an aricle entitled “Reiki for Stress Relief” which I thought was excptional even for the often surprising literature on Reiki. Here is the abstract:
Reiki is Holistic. It isn’t just about the mental, or just about the physical, but both, and an overall restoration and improvement to you. And as we know, often the mental and physical are linked.
While the scientific understanding of Reiki’s effects on emotional blocks is still evolving, many individuals report subjective benefits, such as emotional release, relaxation, and a greater sense of inner peace, following Reiki sessions.
As the philosophy of Reiki is grounded in holistic medicine and thought, it is imperative to continue that tradition and also integrate other scientific -backed therapies such as the ones your doctor may suggest if you have a serious medical or mental condition. A balanced approach is key, and Reiki is possibly a powerful tool and philosophy that can be the missing key or complement to your current care regimen.
This is impressive! Don’t you just love how it’s ‘grounded in holistic thought’ while the scientific understanding is ‘still evolving’ ? That’s a very elegant way of admitting ‘we’re still waiting for the first piece of evidence’. And we all appreciate the disclaimer to actually see a real doctor as soon as we are truly ill.
The Canadian comedian Mayce Galoni had perhaps the best measure of Reiki when he did his stand-up bit about his nephew “becoming a Reiki master” at the age of 21: “My 21-year-old nephew is now a Reiki master. I didn’t even know you could be a master of anything at 21… Reiki is the only career where you can get paid for doing exactly what I do when I can’t find the TV remote.”
Some homeopathy-fans claim that tiny “nanoparticles” survive even in remedies diluted a trillion trillion times (i.e. the process of manufacturing a high-potency homeopathic remedy). They furthermore assume that this phenomenon can explain how homeopathy works. This argument sounds ever so modern and sciency but – unless you are a bit of a dim-wit – it falls apart for several fairly straightforward reasons that almost anyone should be able to grasp.
Too Dilute
Imagine starting with a single drop of medicine and diluting it by adding 99 drops of water, shaking it up, then repeating that hundreds of times. By the 12C stage (about 1 part in 10^24), there’s statistically zero original molecules left – way before most remedies hit 30C or higher. Even if some nanoparticles somehow cling on from the mixing process or glass vials, they’d be so rare (fewer than one per bottle) that they couldn’t reliably affect your body like a real drug.
Breaks the Main Rule
Homeopathy’s main axiom is “like cures like” assumption: a substance that causes a headache in a healthy person should cure headaches when you’re sick. But nanoparticles would just deliver a tiny dose of the ingredient itself, acting like an extremely weak remedy – not following homeopathy’s main axiom. This would turn homeopathy back into normal medicine and miss the basis of its own theory.
Not Based on Materials
Not all homeopathic remedies start with physical ingredients. Some are “imponderables” like “X-ray” (sugar pills exposed to X-ray radiation, then diluted), “vacuum” (made by evacuating air from water), or even “moonlight.” There’s no material at all to leave nanoparticles behind, so this explanation can’t cover those products.
Useless Ingredients
Most homeopathic remedies are based on mother tinctures that have no heath effects, like sepia (ink from cuttlefish), cantharis (Spanish fly blister beetle), or even bits of the Berlin Wall. These aren’t bioactive – they don’t fight infections or reduce pain or do anything else in normal doses. Nanoparticles from such useless junk wouldn’t magically gain healing powers; they’d still do nothing useful for health.
Lack of Convincing Clinical Evidence
As discussed ad nauseam on my blog, there simply is no sound evidence to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Any benefits people feel are thus likely from expectation, natural recovery, or doctor attention – and not from nanoparticles. If homeopathy had any real effects to explain, nanoparticles might be worth debating; without them, it’s a dead end.
I do sympathise with the desperation of homeopaths. They feel they must identify a plausible mode of action for their remedies. Their 200 year old struggle to find anything at all is in many ways remarkable. Here are some of the main explanatory ideas homeopaths (or homeopathy-friendly authors) have previously proposed for how homeopathy might work:
- Vital force / life energy – the remedy is said to act on a non-physical “vital force” or life energy that supposedly governs health and disease.
- Water memory – water is claimed to “remember” substances once dissolved in it, even after dilution beyond any remaining molecules, via changes in water structure or hydrogen bonds.
- Electromagnetic signatures – remedies are said to carry subtle electromagnetic patterns or “information” of the original substance, sometimes claimed to be recordable, transmitted electronically, and imprinted on new water.
- Quantum coherence domains – models suggest water forms coherent quantum domains storing drug “information” as electromagnetic frequencies, inspired by Del Giudice and Preparata’s ideas, though lacking solid experimental support.
- Stable water clusters / clathrates – hypotheses that long-lived clusters or cage-like structures (clathrates) in water somehow encode the properties of the starting substance.
- Nanobubbles and interfaces – suggestions that gas nanobubbles or interfaces in the solution store and transmit information about the starting material.
- Hormesis-based explanations – the idea that ultra-low doses act via hormesis (beneficial effects of mild stress or toxins), extended to the extreme dilutions used in homeopathy.
- Resonance with the body – proposals that remedies resonate with biological systems (cells, tissues, or “vital force”) through frequency matching or electric resonance, rather than via chemistry.
- Quantum entanglement / non-locality – claims that patient, practitioner, and remedy become “entangled,” so healing occurs via non-local quantum effects rather than molecules or doses.
- Information medicine / encoding – framing remedies as carriers of abstract “information” rather than substance, supposedly acting like a software signal on the body’s “hardware.”
Is it not time for homeopaths to accept the only well-proven, plausible explanations as to why their patients feel better after taking their remedies?
- The empathetic therapeutic encounter.
- The natural history of the condition.
- Regression towards the mean.
- Concommittant conventional treatments.
- The placebo effect.
Quantum seems to be all the rage in the weird and wonderful world of SCAM; we have touched upon this phenomenon several times before:
- And the award for the most spectacular ‘quantum bollocks’ goes to …
- Bioresonance as an “Innovative Method of Bioquantum Medicine” – some ‘Christmas Cheer’ for all my readers
- The Healy quantum bollocks just won an award!
- “The effects of the biofield energy therapies are due to the healer’s quantum thinking” – please, do not believe such offensive nonsense!
- The ‘Healy’: deep cellular healing with quantum bollocks
- A quantum-physics perspective on acupuncture and other SCAMs???
- Explaining Homeopathy with Quantum Bollocks
One must commend the impressive ingenuity of those SCAM quantum enthusiasts who, with a flourish of terminology, elevate their bogus therapies to the stature of empirical science. By adorning every unverified practice with the mantle of “quantum,” they deftly sidestep the mundane demands of reproducible evidence, suggesting that subatomic phenomena might indeed orchestrate the restoration of elusive vital energies through SCAM.
How elegantly proponents extrapolate from the tunneling of electrons across potential barriers – observed under meticulously controlled laboratory conditions – to the purported realignment of human bioenergetic fields and restoration of ill health. Yet this analogy falters when confronted with biological reality, wherein macroscopic scales render quantum coherence untenable amid the decohering chaos of aqueous cellular environments. It is akin to attributing automotive propulsion to stellar fusion merely on the commonality of atomic constituents: a rhetorical sleight-of-hand masquerading as profundity.
Equally fantastic is the invocation of biophotons reimagined as conduits for universal life force akin to a metaphysical courier service. Dismiss the negligible intensities – orders of magnitude below thermal noise thresholds – and the absence of causal links in rigorous meta-analyses of SCAM, which align squarely with placebo benchmarks. Such reinterpretations transform faint biophysical curiosities into foundational pillars of alternative paradigms, much to the delight of their adherents.
One cannot overlook the charm of extending quantum entanglement, wherein particles maintain correlated states across distances, to the domain of interpersonal healing dynamics. Here, SCAM practitioners claim intuitive access to a patient’s suffering via non-local correlations, ostensibly validated by foundational theorems yet unsubstantiated by controlled trials. This extension, resilient to falsification, exemplifies a strategic deployment of scientific vernacular to cloak unverifiable assertions in an aura of legitimacy. In this alchemical transmutation of particle physics into a pseudo-scientific lottery – wherein the observer effect yields perpetual vindication for therapeutic claims – the empirical record remains an implacable adjudicator.
A few insightful quotes on the subject:
- “Quantum mysticism is considered by most scientists and philosophers to be pseudoscience or ‘quackery’.”
- “Physicist Murray Gell-Mann coined the phrase ‘quantum flapdoodle’ to refer to the misuse and misapplication of quantum physics to other topics.”
- “Quantum physics is confusing, so it’s magic.” — Professor Dave Explains
- “Quantum mysticism offers the universe as God, along with all the transcendence… without any of the burdens of organized religion. It’s a vapid stand-in for spirituality.” — Professor Dave Explains
- “The assumption that the colloquial and formal meanings of a term from physics – ‘energy’, ‘frequency’, ‘resonance’, etc. – are equivalent [lies] at the heart of all quantum mysticism.” — Philip Moriarty
- “It’s a lucrative industry because the message is so wonderfully compelling: we can think ourselves to success because we’re all part of one great interconnected universal wavefunction.” — Philip Moriarty
- “Quantum mysticism… draws upon ‘coincidental similarities of language rather than genuine connections’ to quantum mechanics.”
- “The quantum mystic is selling artificial transcendence. It’s the convenient sale of an enlightened self-image for the spiritual warrior in a hurry.” — Professor Dave Explains
- “The Law of Karma: What you sow is what you reap. If you plant carrots, don’t expect to harvest watermelons.”
- “If you want to see change in the world, become the change you want to see.”
- “If you want to reach a state of Bliss — make a decision to relinquish the need to control, the need to be approved and the need to judge.”
- “Negative people deplete your energy. Surround yourself with love and nourishment and do not allow the creation of negativity in your environment.”
- “If you want to do really important things in life and big things in life, you can’t do anything by yourself. And your best teams are your friends and your siblings.”
- “Everyone is acting from his own level of consciousness. This is all we can ask of ourselves or anyone else.”
You probably guessed: these gems of wisdom originate from, Deepak Chopra, the guru of platitude-loving Americans. If you don’t want to spend your money on buying one of his books, you can go on the Internet, find one of several available ‘bullshit generators’ and create similarly profound wisdoms all by yourself.
As Deepak is seen to be virtually overflowing with wisdom, spirituality, consciousness, and holistic health, it is perhaps surprising to find his inclusion in the Epstein Files. The link stems primarily from email correspondence and other communications between him and Epstein that have been made public as part of the ongoing disclosures. The records show repeated exchanges dating from at least 2016 through 2019 — well after Epstein’s 2008 conviction as a sex offender — in which the two men discuss a range of topics. These include scheduling meetings or meetings plans, mentions of other public figures, discussions tied to Chopra’s book projects, and exchanges that veer into casual and at times explicit language about “girls” or women. One of the widely circulated emails has Chopra writing to Epstein, “God is a construct. Cute girls are real,” in an apparently informal exploration of consciousness and personal views.
Another released thread shows discussions about meeting logistics, references to public figures such as Marla Maples (the former wife of Donald Trump), and social anecdotes that reveal the personal tenor of some exchanges. These materials were part of the dataset provided to Congress under subpoena as part of its oversight of the Epstein files.
Inclusion in the Epstein Files does not establish that Chopra was involved in any criminal activity or exploitative conduct. U.S. authorities and journalists emphasise that the raw disclosures document communications and connections — not necessarily illegal behavior — and require careful interpretation.
Nonetheless, many of the public reactions to Chopra’s appearance in these disclosures have been sharp. Social media posts and news coverage have highlighted the tone of certain messages, leading to debate and scrutiny from both followers and critics. In response to the heightened attention and criticism, Deepak Chopra issued a public statement acknowledging the gravity of what has been revealed and offering regret for the way some past communications may read in light of what the world now widely knows about Epstein’s crimes. He wrote on social media that he was “deeply saddened by the suffering of the victims in this case” and that he “unequivocally condemn[s] abuse and exploitation in all forms.” Chopra also stated that any contact he had with Epstein was “limited and unrelated to abusive activity,” and he described some of his past messages as reflecting “poor judgment in tone.”
One such ‘sharp reaction’ appeared on Facebook. As it is quite funny as well as very poignant, allow me to show it to you:
Annie McCubbin 6 February at 10:20
WOW DEEPAK THIS SEEMS TO BE A QUANTUM OF A MESS YOU’VE GOT YOURSELF INTO.
Well looky looky here. In the quantum field of possibilities, Deepak has manifested himself one thousand three hundred mentions in the Epstein files.
With the cavalier camaraderie of two average dudes leaning on the bonnet of a pick-up truck, Chopra and Epstein, amid nauseating pseudo intellectual discourse, discuss the noises cute girls make, and whether or not Deepak had found Epstein a cute Israeli.
This, it should be noted, is ten years after Epstein was registered as sex offender of children.
Chopra has made an admission, of sorts. It has the tone of someone who has spent his life beguiling his followers from behind a screen of opaque confounding verbiage, so I guess it’s true to form when he writes the sentence: –
‘Some past emails have surfaced that reflect poor judgement in tone. I regret that and understand how they read today given what was publicly known at the time.’
No Deepak, you purveyor of impenetrable piffle, it’s not how they read ‘today’, it’s just how they read. So how about you take out the obfuscating ‘today’, turn comments back on, come out from behind the infinite consciousness of the karmic trance of the egoic super self, and face the music.
These emails are not anachronistic innocent exchanges between two older gentlemen musing in a reflective way about the opposite sex. No, these men presented a clear and present danger to women. These exchanges are between a seventy-one-year grifter who has promised his millions of followers hope and healing, and a sixty-four-year-old registered sex offender who had been charged with procuring a minor for prostitution.
So, this great spiritual leader. This purveyor of divine transcendence. This guru who imbues his incomprehensible gobbledy gook with the historical spiritual relevance of the subcontinent, has shown a complete paucity of decency, care and morality
Not only are his discussions with Epstein disturbing but they’re peppered with moments where he cynically mocks his own spiritual repartee.
Perhaps his millions of followers who may have felt spiritually dull witted, may be relieved to discover that his entire shtick is a simple reordering of the following eighteen words:-Consciousness, meditation, infinite, universe, god, vibration, stillness, mirror, manifest, luminous. elemental, connection, awareness, love, gratitude, eternal, karma, and divine.
His collection of books, videos, podcasts, products like ‘The ritual care kit.’ supplements and ‘wellness retreats.’ are not the result of Deepak’s deep wisdom but merely pseudoscientific quasi spiritual guff, concocted with all the care of a four-year-old making a cake with dirt, a hair clip, their mothers Estée Lauder anti-aging cream and the stuffing from the dog’s toy rabbit.
Why do so many of us collapse so willingly into the arms of these grifter gurus?
Well, we are told the answer to our emptiness is to look within. We are just an inspirational quote away from happiness. We are seduced by bite sized morsels of the transcendent to sooth our souls.
We can ask what is missing from my life, and the answer will be delivered in three hours via Amazon. $35 plus shipping. How easy is it to sit on our couches and have the soothing tone of Deepak deliver an immersive learning experience into our noise cancelling head phones? Maybe we may muse, it would be truly beneficial to attend one of his wellness retreats. What’s money when we’re on the path to enlightenment? Perhaps we’ll discover the divine goddess within? Seems easier than fighting for the actual rights of women.
Connecting to the self is given a big rap in wellness circles but it seems to be at the cost of reconnecting with others.
The self-care, self-love movement, implying poverty or illness is a misalignment with the abundance on offer from the universe, absolves its’ followers of any responsibility to help others. You sick or poor? Manifest better.
It has been a fabulous distraction from the rapacity of the neocons, dismantling our social structures and denuding our public services, confident in the knowledge we’re too busy healing from within to look outward.
But the empty void within will not be filled by listening to the lilting tones of Deepak. By all means work out your maladaptive patterns and beliefs by talking to a psychologist but maybe swear off the gurus for a bit. It seems they all, at some point, fall from grace.
Chopra while preaching love compassion and peace, was showing off to his convicted sex offender friend, that he can play the misogynistic game as good as the big boys. Meanwhile women all over the world are dying at the hands of their partners. Men schooled and supported in the ideology that women are lesser beings to be controlled, used, punished and discarded.
To so lightly squander the loyalty of your trusting audience seems careless of you Deepak, but maybe the grifting isn’t over. Maybe you can obfuscate out of this, and have an online well published dark night of the soul replete with a brand-new great awakening. There has to be a couple of apps and a book in it.
I hope not. I hope this tearing in the space time continuum has revealed the black hole of grifting where the snake oil salesman sit waiting with their three easy payment options.
Anyway, let us end on one of Deepak’s quotes. ‘Karma memory and desire are just the software of the soul.’
Well Deepak, better strap in, I hear karma can be a real bitch.
The literature of homeopathy is littered with papers that are weirdly hilarious. A recent example of this genre is an article by Indian authors published in the ‘INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE’ entitled Homeopathy in chronic disease management: a critical review of the evidence. Here is its abstract:
Homeopathy remains one of the most widely practiced complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities worldwide, particularly among individuals with chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) who seek safe, holistic, and personalized therapeutic options. Despite its global popularity, controversy continues regarding its mechanisms of action and clinical effectiveness. This review critically evaluates the current evidence on the role of homeopathy in chronic disease management. A comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2025 was conducted. Studies were included if they examined homeopathic interventions in chronic conditions such as asthma, arthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, chronic pain, and fibromyalgia. Data were synthesized thematically to assess efficacy, mechanistic plausibility, methodological quality, and safety outcomes. Mechanistic hypotheses suggest that hormesis, nanoparticle-mediated signaling, immune modulation, and neuropsychological or psychosocial mechanisms may contribute to the therapeutic effects of homeopathy. Meta-analytic evidence demonstrates modest but statistically significant improvements in subjective measures such as pain, fatigue, and quality of life across several chronic diseases, with standardized mean differences ranging from 0.18 to 0.25. However, objective clinical outcomes, including spirometry and HbA1c, rarely show consistent benefit. Methodological challenges, including small sample sizes, heterogeneous interventions, limited follow-up durations, and a high risk of bias, continue to constrain the reliability of existing findings. Importantly, homeopathy exhibits a favorable safety profile, with no serious adverse events reported across chronic disease studies. Current evidence indicates that homeopathy may provide modest adjunctive benefits for symptom relief and improved patient satisfaction among individuals with chronic illnesses, although its specific therapeutic mechanisms remain uncertain. Integration of homeopathy into evidence-based, patient-centered chronic disease management frameworks may enhance holistic care. Future research should emphasize large-scale, multicenter randomized trials with standardized outcome measures and mechanistic endpoints to better define clinical relevance and biological plausibility.
The lead author of this paper earns his living in the Department of Materia Medica, NatoreHomeo Medical College, Natore, Bangladesh. Thus, we might be surprised by the critical tone of this paper. However, having a closer look at it, we soon find that, under a thin veneer of critical assessment, the paper is a prime attempt of white-washing the established evidence. Let me explain; the authors claim that:
- “Mechanistic hypotheses suggest that hormesis, nanoparticle-mediated signaling, immune modulation, and neuropsychological or psychosocial mechanisms may contribute to the therapeutic effects of homeopathy.” Do the authors really suggest that all of these vague theories are true? Why not decide which one constitutes the actual mode of action? Why not tell the truth and state clearly that none of them are remotely plausible, none would explain how homeopathy works, and none is accepted by anyone outside the cult of homeopathy?
- ” Meta-analytic evidence demonstrates modest but statistically significant improvements in subjective measures such as pain, fatigue, and quality of life across several chronic diseases, with standardized mean differences ranging from 0.18 to 0.25. ” Do the authors not see that the meta-analyses demonstrating such outcomes are invariably done by overtly biased homeopath? Do they really not know that independent scientists are unable to confirm such findings?
- “Homeopathy exhibits a favorable safety profile…” Are the authors not aware that using homeopathy (or any other ineffective therapy) to treat serious conditions at best prolongs the suffering of patients and at worst hastens their death?
- “Homeopathy may provide modest adjunctive benefits for symptom relief…” Do the authors know that this statement is firstly untrue and secondly contradicts Hahnemann’s teaching (he called doctors who employed homeopathy as an add-on therapy “traitors” and insisted that homeopathy was not a symptomatic treatment but a causal cure of disease)?
Understanding that this is what homeopaths call a ‘CRITICAL’ review might be helpful: it explains, I think, why they they feel that true critical assessments are nothing but brutal and cynical destructions of their beautiful fantasies.
