Are You A Skeptic Or A Believer?

William Bengston PhD declares something very profound in his energy healing training course, Hands On Healing. He asks for everyone in his audience to be "skeptics." To Dr. Bengston, skeptics are individuals who are not attached emotionally to an outcome. They are open-minded to whatever the data shows and continue to ask questions. He contrasts this with "believers" who have an egoic-based need to be "right" or to prove others "wrong." Science is full of this paradox: professionals who claim skepticism by default, yet refuse to entertain any idea outside their existing paradigm—even when emerging data suggests there is more to the story. In the energy healing world, we come across many "believers" as well. These often filter into one of two main camps- the camp of "energy healing is definitely real and could help everyone" and the camp of "there is no way energy healing exists beyond placebo." If you find yourself resonating with one of these two camps, then that is completely okay and it is highly understandable. We base so much of what we believe on our real-life experiences, our culture and the context of the world around us. However, I invite you to ask yourself a very important question: Do I approach things we do not yet understand as a believer or as a skeptic? How we answer that can ignite the spark that leads to profound transformation.

Much of the scientific world will readily and enthusiastically discount biofield therapy, also known as "energy healing." One of the main reasons for this is that there is no proven mechanism for how biofield therapies work. Scientists need to understand the mechanism because it means that we know how we got from point A to B. It also means that the data is likely reproducible, which is a hallmark of quality research. For example, most of us would not wish to take a medication that was poorly understood by the chemists who created it and that had not been repeatedly tested. We cannot change laws of physics without seeing countless experiments that prove the same hypothesis. Science needs to be rigorous, unbiased and methodical when it comes to research.

While these things are true, it can also be true that many things in our experience cannot yet be understood but still happen regardless.

Even though many of us would wish the medications we take to have a crystal-clear mechanism, the reality is that we don't fully understand how many different drugs work. In fact, many efficacious drugs were first discovered by happy accidents, where scientists saw the effects before understanding the mechanism. Take acetaminophen, statins, and general anesthetics, as examples. These medications can work quite well and we know a great deal about their safety profile but scientists have yet to understand fully how they work in the body. And yet, these are taken by millions of people everyday. Importantly, we understand a lot about their relative safety and thus, make allowances and are willing to overlook the parts we don't know. Many people also have a trust in what is already established, such as "I take medications to treat illness or disease ."

This is completely understandable, but it behooves us to question the things that we objectively deny because we don't fully comprehend them.

Interestingly enough, there exists today a collective body of research that seems to suggest more is occurring during biofield therapy sessions than can be explained by the placebo effect alone. Those that take the stance that the concept of a biofield- a field of energy surrounding the human body- is inherently false can also simultaneously agree that the session alone may be calming to the nervous system and thus have clinical benefit, although these benefits would be labeled as nothing more than placebo. The placebo response alone is actually extremely interesting and the fact that it occurs at all says much about the mind-body connection. However, when it comes to biofield science, practitioners and researchers alike aim to demonstrate that a biofield does in fact exist and healers can reduce disease burden by therapeutically targeting it. 

Many of the more groundbreaking findings have occurred in pre-clinical studies (using cells and/or animal models rather than humans) which are limited when it comes to shifting treatment guidelines, but are quite useful when it comes to limiting the placebo effect on the study outcomes. For example, researchers at the MD Anderson Cancer Center demonstrated that the Bengston energy healing method had statistically significant effects on pancreatic cancer cell proliferation and metastasis. Other researchers at the University of Connecticut have demonstrated statistically significant effects on the growth of healthy bone cells while also decreasing the proliferation of osteosarcoma (cancerous bone) cells by applying an energy healing method called Therapeutic Touch. As far as we currently understand, cells do not have the capability of "believing" in a treatment thus the placebo effect is markedly reduced in these types of studies. In addition, this research is performed at research centers with rigorous study design. And yet, the vast majority of scientists would likely automatically dismiss energy healing. I would hope to be wrong about this and I do think that we are seeing more and more individuals open their minds to a truly skeptical approach of “show me the data” rather than “that is just nonsense and can’t be true.” I do not bring up energy healing because I am attempting to convince readers that it exists. However, it serves as a great example of the limitations of rigid belief when it comes to the potential of non-invasive and overall safe adjunctive treatments.

How much will the western world open to something that does not fit into the current paradigm even when the studies begin to mount suggesting there is more to the story? It will be interesting to watch. 

At the same time that we see disbelief in scientific communities for anything outside currently accepted paradigms, there is an increasing fascination amongst large swaths of western society with the paranormal. There is a growing trend to see the term "psi" attached to podcasts, articles, documentaries, and countless other platforms. People have always had a fascination with things like ghosts, life after death, reincarnation, and miracles. However, we seem to be entering a time when these phenomena are increasingly being documented and researched. Take, for example, the wildly popular yet controversial podcast The Telepathy Tapes, or the many books on near-death experiences (NDEs). In fact, there are institutions all over the world cataloging and researching NDEs, such as the Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) at the University of Virginia and the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS).

Reincarnation remains highly controversial and clashes with many different religious beliefs; however, DOPS has cataloged over 2,000 cases of young children recounting memories from past lives, some of which are highly specific in terms of names, relationships, and events.

I have watched Dr. Jim Tucker interview preschool-aged children who, when asked to select from multiple pictures of people and places from their purported past lives, identify them with incredible precision—often verifying dozens of obscure historical facts.

There is nothing in our current understanding that can explain this phenomenon, yet it has been observed and documented. Does "paranormal" equate with "impossible," or is it just not yet understood? And if we say it is impossible, is that coming from us as a skeptic or as a believer?

These things go both ways on the spectrum of belief. Just as some scientists dismiss psi phenomena out of hand, we also see proponents react to skepticism with their own defensive walls, unintentionally shutting down others in the exact same way they were shut down. I personally thought that The Telepathy Tapes was extremely fascinating. The messages of universal love, the idea of hidden human potential, and the featured guests opened my eyes to many amazing concepts, people, and organizations. It was only after listening to a Talk Tracks episode that I enrolled in the wonderful CHI course (The Science of Healing) and read Elizabeth Gilbert's provocative novel Big Magic. The producers and writers do an incredible job of bringing a voice to a long-overlooked and possibly terribly misunderstood segment of our population: non-verbal autistic individuals. However, I can't help but feel that in their quest to validate this group, they alienated many others.

The emotional attachment to proving telepathy exists comes through like a foghorn on what would otherwise be a beautiful symphony.

The writers seemingly need to prove that telepathy is real and that everyone who discounts them is just falling into the trap of materialism. Even though I am tremendously grateful for their courage and am empathetic to the natural inclination to defend the families featured on the show, I can't help but see some parallels in what Dr. Bengston referred to as "believers.” Do we need an emotional attachment to whether non-speakers possess extraordinary abilities? Or can we hold space with openness and equanimity, honoring those who disagree? In fact, I feel that this latter approach aligns much better with the core philosophy of the non-speakers themselves whose primary offering to the world is fundamentally about love and connection.

And what of faith? There is so much to be said for those who have strong foundations in faith, which by default is difficult to scientifically prove or analyze. There is a higher “knowing” that exists in the paradigm of faith. For example, I highly doubt that Mother Teresa devoted her life to serving the less fortunate out of a devotion to reproducible scientific theorems. The need to prove something material in faith can not only hinder the energy in that belief system, but also create a polarized reality where “I am right” and “you are wrong.” This is different from asking open, skeptical questions of faith, which inherently allows for more collaboration and creativity. It is the egoic attachment to the need for validation that acts like a vice on our consciousness and shared experience. It is a weight that drags us down to baser depths.

It is not faith itself, but the egoic attachment to our faith that is the hindrance.

It is possible for two things to be true — I can have faith and a deeper sense of knowing without the imposition or the need for another to validate my experience. I can approach this “other” as a healthy, grounded individual while also allowing for their diverse path. I can also choose to be a skeptic and still have faith because I am open to any outcome. I’m always learning and growing, fostering a growth mindset that is naturally based in love rather than fear.

It makes me think of something my mother always told me: “Actions speak louder than words.” In our actions to prove ourselves “right” and to make others “wrong,” we can alienate the very souls we wish to “save.” Life is full of these paradoxes, but it only takes higher awareness to see them for what they are—something of which we are all capable.

I don't know about you, but I love watching period dramas like Downton Abbey and Poldark. In the latter, we see miners in late 18th-century England digging for copper. Can you imagine if someone went up to those miners and said, "Guess what? You can take that copper, turn it into long, thin wires, attach those to a lamp, and power it with electricity"? In the best-case scenario, they would just laugh and call you crazy. In the worst, they might have you arrested, tried, and hanged for heresy.

Just because 18th century miners couldn’t conceive of electricity, does that mean that electricity was impossible?

Ancient humans did not know about atoms, but does that mean atoms did not make up the fabric of their very existence? What if telepathy and energy healing fall into this category? We do not understand them now, but that should not mean they automatically don't exist or are false. The current scientific paradigm shapes our reality, but it is limited in scope. How can it not be, given that we are always evolving our technology and, consequently, our understanding of the universe? We often base what we believe on what is scientifically proven or commonly accepted at the time, so our perspective is contextual.

However, it is a mistake to think that this current snapshot could capture the totality of what is possible in the universe.

How do I suggest we proceed? In writing this, am I not also channeling the egoic need to be validated and understood? It is here that I would like to point out that I do not equate "ego" with "bad." In fact, the ego is a necessary aspect of survival, and it is extremely natural. Our egos help defend and protect us, giving us a way to make sense of this crazy world. However, two truths coexist: the ego is a natural part of the human psyche, and it is a limiting construct that is not the entirety of who we are. The difference lies in the awareness of when I am operating within the domain of ego and when I am not. For example, if I get offended that someone does not like this blog post, I have the opportunity to notice that this is my ego speaking. 

The fact that we have a choice can blow your mind when you really think about it. As authors Michael A. Singer and Eckhart Tolle purport, we are not the thoughts in our heads. We are not our emotions or our beliefs; we are the awareness that is aware of all of those things. When you breathe space into this awareness, your reality suddenly becomes expansive, and concepts like "letting go" and "surrendering to what is" become plausible. It means that I can then allow others to reject what I write. It does not mean that I won't be emotionally upset; of course I will be. However, I know that the upset would be only temporary, and that I can always come back to my higher awareness—a state where acceptance, joy and peace naturally flow. It also means that I can accept the naysayers for exactly where they are at this moment, without needing them to change.

So, I ask again: are you a skeptic or a believer?

Funnily enough, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this question. You are what you are, but I would hope you understand that you can be so much more and every moment presents new opportunity. In even asking this question of ourselves, we are advancing our consciousness because we are humbly allowing ourselves to open to possibility. At the end of the day, we may firmly hold the stance of a believer and that is okay. Just know that you have a choice.

Melissa Huck Nguyen MD is a licensed family medicine physician living in the Bay Area, CA with her husband, two kids, a massive collection of fantasy fiction novels, and far too much Disney paraphernalia.

References:

1. MD Anderson Cancer Center Study

Cohen, L., Delorme, A., Cusimano, A., Chakraborty, S., Nguyen, P., Deng, D., Iqbal, S., Nelson, M., Wei, D., Fields, C., & Yang, P. (2024). Examining the effects of biofield therapy through simultaneous assessment of electrophysiological and cellular outcomes. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 29221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79617-3

2. University of Connecticut (Healthy Cell Proliferation Study)

Gronowicz, G. A., Jhaveri, A., Clarke, L. W., Aronow, M. S., & Smith, T. H. (2008). Therapeutic touch stimulates the proliferation of human cells in culture. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 14(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2007.7163

3. University of Connecticut (Osteosarcoma Cancer & Normal Cell Comparison)

Monzillo, E., & Gronowicz, G. (2011). New insights on therapeutic touch: a discussion of experimental methodology and design that resulted in significant effects on normal human cells and osteosarcoma. EXPLORE, 7(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2010.10.001