Biofield therapies refer to a group of healing practices in which a trained practitioner works with the energy and information fields that surround and permeate the human body. These fields are described in scientific literature as interacting layers of electromagnetic and subtle signals that support physiological regulation, stress response, and emotional balance (Jain 2015).
In simple terms, the biofield concept suggests that living systems are not only chemistry and structure, but also generate and respond to patterns of energy and information. Some of these fields are familiar, such as the electrical activity measured by electrocardiograms for the heart and electroencephalograms for the brain. Others are more subtle and may involve weak electromagnetic signals or other forms of energy and information that are not yet fully understood (Rubik 2015).
Biofield therapies include practices such as Reiki, Healing Touch, Therapeutic Touch, External Qigong, and forms of spiritual or intentional healing. A 2025 scoping review mapped 353 peer-reviewed interventional clinical studies on biofield therapies, including 255 randomized controlled trials, across conditions such as chronic pain, cancer care, cardiovascular disorders, mental health, surgery recovery, and healthy populations. Nearly half of these studies reported positive outcomes on measures including pain, anxiety, fatigue, and quality of life (Sprengel 2025).
One of the strongest recent examples is a randomized controlled trial published in 2025 that evaluated Reiki and mindfulness for chronic knee osteoarthritis pain. The study assigned 164 adults with physician-confirmed KOA to Reiki, sham-Reiki, mindfulness meditation, or waitlist control. After four weekly 30-minute sessions, the Reiki group showed significant improvements in pain interference and physical functioning compared with baseline and control conditions (Hanley 2025). This study reinforces that biofield therapies can produce clinically meaningful effects beyond placebo control.
Evidence from trials in cancer and chronic illness contexts also supports biofield applications. Several studies have reported reductions in fatigue, stress, pain, and improvements in well-being when biofield therapies are included as supportive care alongside conventional treatment (Utli 2023; Liu 2025).
Physiological and molecular investigations are also emerging. Across different biofield modalities, researchers have recorded changes in heart rate, blood pressure, heart rate variability, stress hormone profiles, inflammatory cytokines, and immune cell activity, often trending toward improved autonomic balance and immune regulation (Jain 2015; Sprengel 2025). Some preclinical and translational studies suggest that these practices may influence cellular functions such as immune signaling, inflammation, and stress physiology, although mechanistic clarity remains limited (Gronowicz 2016; Sá 2025).
Energy medicine is a broader category including biofield therapies and also device-based interventions that use measurable electromagnetic fields. These methods, such as pulsed electromagnetic field therapy, aim to influence cellular signaling, tissue repair, or modulation of inflammation via well-characterized physical inputs. Recent work proposes that low-frequency electromagnetic fields can modulate ion channels, oxidative stress pathways, and inflammatory signaling, and might influence gene expression or epigenetic regulation in principle (Sá 2025). These findings offer a potential mechanistic link between externally applied electromagnetic energy and biological responses.
Viewed together, the evidence from biofield therapies and energy medicine suggests that the human body can respond to both subtle practitioner-delivered and device-mediated energetic inputs in measurable ways that influence physiology, symptom burden, and well-being. Biofield therapies show promise for pain relief, stress reduction, and supportive care, while energy-based electromagnetic interventions may offer mechanistic insight into how energy can modulate cellular and molecular pathways.
At the same time, the field is still evolving. Many trials have methodological limitations — small sample sizes, variable practitioner training, inconsistent dosing or session descriptions, and heterogeneity in outcome measures (Sprengel 2025). Researchers have identified a need for standardized protocols and improved reporting, and guidelines for biofield clinical trials (Biofield Therapies Reporting Evidence Guidelines, BiFi-REGs) have recently been published to help address these issues (Hammerschlag 2025).
For patients and clinicians, a balanced view is warranted. Biofield therapies and energy medicine should not be viewed as a substitute for conventional treatment in serious conditions such as cancer or advanced disease. Instead, they offer low-risk, potentially beneficial complementary approaches — especially for symptom management, emotional support, stress regulation, and quality of life. Their use should be thoughtful, transparent, and integrated with standard medical care when appropriate.
As research continues to grow, the bridge between ancient energy-based healing traditions and modern biomedical science is becoming more concrete. With better-designed trials, clearer definitions, and robust mechanistic studies, energy medicine may find a legitimate place in integrative health care.
References
Hanley AW, Nakamura Y, Edwards RR, et al.
Complementary therapies for chronic knee pain: A placebo-controlled RCT of Reiki and mindfulness. Complement Ther Med. 2025;95:103278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2025.103278
Sá R. Advancing biophysics in energy-based clinical interventions:
A review of biophysical foundations of biofield therapies and electromagnetic interventions. Front Neurosci. 2025.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830725000898
Sprengel ML, Teo L, Allen S, Ijssennagger N, Hammerschlag R, Dyer NL, Crawford C.
Biofield Therapies Clinical Research Landscape: A Scoping Review and Interactive Evidence Map. J Integr Complement Med. 2025;31(5).
https://doi.org/10.1089/jicm.2024.0773
Liu K, et al.
The effect of Reiki on fatigue symptoms of cancer patients: A systematic review. Holist Nurs Pract. 2025.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11951753/
Hammerschlag R, Sprengel ML, Baldwin AL.
Biofield Therapies: Guidelines for clinical trials. J Integr Complement Med. 2024;31(3):27536130231202501.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38304734/
Unal N, Bektaş Akpinar N, Bek D, Yurtsever S.
The Effect of Reiki on Pain, Functional Status, and Holistic Well-Being in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Orthop Nurs. 2024;43(2):109–118.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38546686/
Utli H, Dinç T.
The effect of acupressure or Reiki interventions on the levels of pain and fatigue of cancer patients receiving palliative care: A randomized controlled study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2023.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830722002117?via%3Dihub
Gronowicz G, Secor E, Flynn JR, et al.
Human biofield therapy does not affect tumor size but modulates immune responses in a mouse model of breast cancer. J Integr Med. 2016;14(2):122–128.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27641610/
Jain S, Hammerschlag R, Mills P, et al.
Clinical studies of biofield therapies: Summary, methodological challenges and recommendations. Glob Adv Health Med. 2015;4(Suppl):58–66.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26665043/
Rubik B, Muehsam D, Hammerschlag R, Jain S.
Biofield science and healing: History, concepts, evidence and emerging applications. Glob Adv Health Med. 2015;4(Suppl):8–14.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26665037/
Turner JG, Clark AJ, Gauthier DK, Williams M.
The effect of Therapeutic Touch on pain and anxiety in burn patients. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28(1):10–20.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9687125/