The Healing Gods

This page intentionally left blank

The Healing Gods
Complementary and Alternative
Medicine in Christian America
z
CANDY GUNTHER BROWN

1
3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide.

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by

Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

© Oxford University Press 2013

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior
permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law,
by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization.
Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Brown, Candy Gunther.
The healing gods : complementary and alternative medicine in christian
America / Candy Gunther Brown.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978–0–19–998578–4 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Alternative medicine—United
States. 2. Alternative medicine—Religious aspects—Christianity. 3. Mind and body
therapies—United States. I. Title.
R733.B884 2013
610—dc23
201205001

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
For Josh, Katrina, and Sarah
This page intentionally left blank
 Contents

Acknowledgments ix
Abbreviations xi

Introduction: Why Is Complementary and Alternative Medicine

(CAM) Supposed to Work? 1

1. Is CAM Religious? 22

2. Yoga: I Bow to the God within You 45

3. Is CAM Christian? 67

4. I Love My Chiropractor! 91

5. Does CAM Work, and Is It Safe? 112

6. Acupuncture: Reclaiming Ancient Wisdom 139

7. How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 155

8. Energy Medicine: How Her Karma Ran Over His Dogma 179

Conclusion: Why Does It Matter If CAM Is

Religious (and Not Christian)—Even If It Works? 200

Notes 231
Bibliography 249
Index 297
This page intentionally left blank
 Acknowledgments

Acknowledging debts for a project such as this is always a pleasant duty. This
book was funded by the Flame of Love Project through the John Templeton
Foundation, University of Akron, and Institute for Research on Unlimited
Love; and Indiana University, through a Lilly Endowment New Frontiers in
the Arts and Humanities grant, Outstanding Junior Faculty award, and New
Frontiers traveling fellowship. The conclusions do not necessarily represent
views of funding agencies. Since this book is an outgrowth of my previous
Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Healing, edited (Oxford University Press,
2011), and Testing Prayer: Science and Healing (Harvard University Press, 2012),
I remain indebted to all those who facilitated these companion projects. By
permission, chapter four expands on “Chiropractic and Christianity: The
Power of Pain to Adjust Cultural Alignments,” Church History 79:1 (2010): 1-38.
This book does not intend to provide medical or legal advice.
I benefited from outstanding research assistants: Kate Netzler Burch,
Sarah Dees, Erin Garvey, Dana Logan. I learned from student papers by Elisa
Boruvka, Yi Cai, Sarah Carleton, Brittany Carlton, Alison Dolezal, Nathan
Frankel, Danielle Gadberry, Diane Grise, Chere’ Denise Hunter, David Klein,
Claire Kruschke, Marcus Lamaster, Kaitlyn Lennox, Michael Metroka, Ethan
Oates, Sarah Peters, Jessica Rivers, Emily Sullivan, Blake Vanderbosch,
Rebecca Vasko. The manuscript improved through comments from col-
leagues Heather Blair, Heather Curtis, Constance Furey, David Haberman,
Michael Ing, Andrea Jain, Sylvester Johnson, Robert Johnston, Craig Keener,
Mathew Lee, Nancy Levene, Rebecca Manring, Patrick Michelson, Richard
Miller, Richard Nance, Margaret Poloma, Stephen Selka, Lisa Sideris, Aaron
Stalnaker; and students and friends Rachel Coleman, Dawnetta Cooper, Travis
Cooper, Chris Hampson, Amanda Koch, Emilee Larson, Andrew Monteith,
Molly Scripture. I am grateful for legal guidance from Daniel Conkle, J.D.,
Sarah Hughes, J.D., Jody Madeira, J.D., Ph.D., Aviva Orenstein, J.D., Winnifred
Sulivan, J.D., Ph.D. I appreciate the medical expertise of Kenneth Cornetta,
x Acknowledgments

M.D., Thomas Hwang, M.D., Martin Moore-Ede., M.D., Ph.D., Stephen Mory,
M.D., David Zaritsky, M.D. Many thanks to Cynthia Read and excellent staff
and anonymous readers for Oxford University Press. I thank my husband,
Josh, and daughters, Katrina and Sarah, for sharpening my arguments and
loving and entertaining me.
 Abbreviations

ACA American Chiropractic Association

ACS American Cancer Society
AHNA American Holistic Nurses Association
AHRQ Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality
AMA American Medical Association
AME Association for Mindfulness in Education
ANA American Nurses Association
AYA American Yoga Association
CAM complementary and alternative medicine
CCA Christian Chiropractors Association
CDSR Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
CEU continuing education unit
CMAN Christian Martial Arts Network
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FTC Federal Trade Commission
ICA International Chiropractors’ Association
JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association
MBSR Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction
MMA mixed martial arts
NACM National Association for Chiropractic Medicine
NANDA North American Nursing Diagnosis Association
NCCAM National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
NCI National Cancer Institute
NIH National Institutes of Health
OAM Office of Alternative Medicine
PHS Public Health Service
POCA People’s Organization of Community Acupuncture
xii Abbreviations

RCT randomized controlled trial

TCM Traditional Chinese Medicine
TM Transcendental Meditation
WCA World Chiropractic Alliance
WHO World Health Organization
The Healing Gods
This page intentionally left blank
 Introduction
Why is Complementary and Alternative
Medicine (CAM) Supposed to Work?

if you are like most Americans, you or someone you care about has prob-
ably tried complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Maybe you sought
relief from back pain by visiting a chiropractor, treated the common cold with
an over-the-counter homeopathic remedy, or coped with workplace stress by
practicing yoga. The choice of CAM made sense as an inexpensive, natural
investment in your health that promised a reprieve from suffering or enhanced
wellness for body, mind, and spirit. You may have wondered whether CAM
would work and whether it was worth your time and money. But your health-
care provider or Internet advice pointed to scientific evidence, so you gave it a
try. You probably did not ask why CAM is supposed to work. To ask this simple
question—and to insist on getting more than superficial answers—is to open
a fascinating window onto how CAM may influence not only your health but
also your religion.
This book explains how and why CAM entered the American cultural main-
stream, most remarkably finding a niche among evangelical and other theo-
logically conservative Christians, although much of CAM is religious but not
distinctively Christian and lacks scientific evidence of efficacy and safety. Most
CAM advertisements stress natural, scientifically validated health benefits.
But whether or not they tell you this, many CAM providers make religious or
spiritual assumptions about why CAM works, assumptions inspired by selec-
tive interpretations of multifaceted religious traditions such as Hinduism,
Buddhism, and Taoism (Daoism) that developed in Asia or metaphysical spiri-
tuality that grew up in Europe and North America.1
Popular interest in CAM has never been greater than it is today. Surveys
show that 38 percent of Americans use CAM, and almost everyone has a
2 the healing gods

relative or a close friend who is a CAM user. Perhaps 80 percent of Americans

have tried CAM at least once. Use of CAM is not in itself a new develop-
ment. Surveys conducted in 1924 and 1990 both reported that 34 percent of
Americans used CAM that year. But the perceived boundary between conven-
tional and alternative medicine appears to be loosening. In 1990, Americans
made 425 million visits to CAM practitioners, compared with 388 million vis-
its to conventional medical doctors. In 1997, 32 percent of patients had during
the previous year consulted both an M.D. and a CAM provider for the same
condition, compared with 1990, when only 20 percent combined visits to both
provider types.2
The recent integration of CAM into the mainstream health-care market
and conservative Christian subculture is an extraordinary development. Before
the 1960s, most of the practices considered in this book—yoga, chiropractic,
acupuncture, Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, meditation, martial arts, homeopa-
thy, and anticancer regimens—if encountered at all, were generally dismissed
as medically and religiously questionable. Conventional medical doctors dis-
paraged CAM as quackery, and Christian clergy denounced CAM as idolatry
because it seemed tainted by “Eastern” religions or “New Age” spirituality.
Today, CAM fills growing niches in Walmarts, YMCAs, public schools, hospi-
tals, business corporations, and Christian churches. Medical doctors are reas-
sessing CAM as cutting-edge, “integrative” medicine. Evangelical Christians
are reclassifying CAM as religiously neutral “science”—indeed, as better than
biomedicine, because it is more “natural” and free of the atheistic bent of
medical materialism.
By the twenty-first century, CAM had moved from the peripheries to the cen-
ter of culturally accepted health-care practices. This book poses a pivotal ques-
tion: What causes practices that most Americans once classified as illegitimate
for medical and religious reasons to be redefined as legitimate routes to physical
and spiritual wellness? My basic answer is that CAM promoters strategically
marketed products to consumers poised by suboptimal health to embrace effec-
tive, spiritually wholesome therapies. Once-suspect health practices became
mainstream as practitioners recategorized them as nonreligious (though gener-
ically spiritual) health-care, fitness, or scientific techniques—congruent with
popular understandings of quantum physics and neuroscience—rather than as
religious rituals.
This development is noteworthy because certain CAM claims are similar
to religious claims, but CAM gained cultural legitimacy because many people
interpret it as science instead of religion. Examining this process of cultural
redefinition illumines how Americans navigate the relationship between the
“religious” and the “secular.” This leads to broad questions, such as: What is
 Introduction 3

religion? What is science? How are scientific vocabularies and methods used
in cultural, religious, and legal debates, and how do religious and commercial
motives shape understandings of science? What happens when people trans-
pose religious/secular categories? Ultimately, what difference does it make if
CAM is understood to be science but functions like religion?
My agenda is to tell the intriguing and sometimes astonishing story of
the mainstreaming of CAM in America. A significant aspect of this story is
that CAM is a charged issue that evokes powerful emotional responses from
supporters and critics. Many people have unmet health needs that occasion
physical and emotional suffering, experiences exacerbated by uncertainty, fear,
repeated attempts and failures to find help from medical or religious sources,
and implicit or explicit judgments from others that one is thinking about or
pursuing health the wrong way. Although certain readers may have strongly
positive or negative emotional reactions to the content of this book, I do not
intend to make normative claims about what Christians or other Americans
should believe or practice. I do, however, voice concerns about the processes and
contexts through which CAM’s mainstreaming has occurred, because these
mechanisms can hinder people’s agency to make the health-care and religious
decisions they want to make and intensify rather than alleviate human suf-
fering. I hope to provide insight into the complex cultural, ethical, and legal
issues involved as Americans navigate the health-care market.

What Is CAM?
Common definitions of CAM encompass any healing practice not “included
in mainstream health care in the United States,” because it “lacks or has
only limited experimental and clinical study” indicating medical value. Many
therapies labeled as “alternative,” “complementary,” “integrative,” or “holis-
tic” share more than a lack of conventional medical validation. Conventional
medicine, or biomedicine, constructs human bodies as biological organisms
and employs material treatments to cure individual diseases, while also, at
least as an ideal, attending to patients’ mental, emotional, and social-cultural
needs. By contrast with the materialistic premises of biomedicine, holistic
(from the Greek holos, or “whole”) worldviews presume that health entails
much more than absence of disease and that humans—as complex inter-
relationships of mind-body-spirit—possess vast self-recuperative potential.
Concepts of humans as inseparable units of soul, spirit, and flesh (Hebrew
nephesh, ruach, basar) can be found in ancient religious and philosophical tra-
ditions, including Judaism and Christianity, but the term holistic was coined
by the South African philosopher Jan Smuts in 1926 and popularized by the
4 the healing gods

holistic health-care movement of the 1970s. Holism, as the term is often used
today, presupposes that all reality is essentially one (monism), and matter and
energy, physical and nonphysical entities, exist in a continuum and constantly
affect each other.3
Holistic ideas permeate American culture. It has become commonplace to
speak of health for body, mind, and spirit—so commonplace that one may not
notice the significance of the last term in this trinity. Use of the term spirit, as
with spiritual and spirituality, implies that living beings have an “immaterial
aspect” that is “radically nonmaterial.” Such an idea may lead into metaphysi-
cal—beyond physical—concepts of “correspondence” between mind and spirit
(or communication across natural and spiritual realms), psychic intuition,
clairvoyance, and use of nonmaterial energy to change the material world.4
A central assumption unifying diverse CAM practices is the existence—
and possibility of redirecting—universal life force or vital energy. This
“energy” is variously termed qi (pronounced “chee”), ki, prana, animal magne-
tism, vital force, biofields, or Innate Intelligence, concepts that may sound famil-
iar to those introduced to “the Force” by Star Wars. Blockages or imbalances
in the flow of vital energy from the universe through the human body pre-
sumably cause disease, often written as “dis-ease,” or lack of ease. Holistic
healing may involve opening blockages or redirecting flows of energy through
the body’s energy channels (nadis or meridians, joined at chakras), rebalancing
opposing energy principles (yin and yang), or restoring harmonious equilib-
rium between human bodies and a divine principle that indwells the cosmos
and flows through all things. Techniques include physical touch of the body or
redirection of energy fields beyond the body using one’s hands or instruments
such as needles, or ingestion or external application of substances intended to
restore energy balance. Some practices combine handling energy fields with
invocation of aid from personal deities or spirits and rituals to protect against
maleficent spirits or dangerous energies. Other practices take for granted the
existence of vital energy but can be employed without reference to energetic
principles.5
The term energy has positive connotations. People feel well when they’re
“energetic” or “energized”; “energy drinks” appear in impulse-buy sections of
grocery stores; “energy” evokes images of a valuable resource that does useful
work and increases human comfort. Energy is an expansive concept, broad
enough to appeal generally while allowing room for divergent, even contra-
dictory interpretations. The same word refers to measurable wavelengths
and frequencies of electricity, light, sound, and magnetism and to invisible
forces undetectable by conventional scientific instruments. The flexibility of
the energy label obscures a fundamental difference between biomedical and
 Introduction 5

holistic concepts. Vital energy is more than a physical force. It is alive and
life-giving, intelligent, and goal-directed, beneficently promoting homeostasis
or balance. Vital energy is “subtle,” meaning that it cannot be proven to exist.
People claim to know it is real through intuitive perception or observation of
apparent effects. While performing healing rituals, people report physical sen-
sations such as warmth, tingling, or vibrations akin to “electricity.”6
Electricity is a compelling modern metaphor that bridges physical and
spiritual notions of energy. Electricity is an invisible force that can be felt,
does work, and can be detected and measured using modern technology, but
electricity was no less “real” before scientists discovered instruments to mea-
sure it. People sometimes reason that if they sense something comparable to
electricity, then—even though this energy cannot be detected or measured by
technology—it, too, is a real, natural, though invisible, force. The National
Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) differentiates
“veritable” energy fields, those that can be measured, from “putative” energy
fields, those that “have yet to be measured.” Implicitly, if scientific instrumen-
tation becomes sufficiently sophisticated, it may become possible to measure,
and establish the existence of, putative energy.7
Those interested in finding evidence of vital energy experiment with novel
technologies. Energy-detection devices include a superconducting quantum
interference device (SQUID), a gas-discharge visualization device (GDV), a
scintillation counter to quantify “tiny flashes of light” generated by “gamma
rays,” and Kirlian photography (named after Russian inventors Semyon
and Valentina Kirlian). Kirlian photography, for instance, is a technique of
“high-voltage photography” that purportedly captures changes in the “elec-
trodynamic field” that permeates and surrounds objects following energy
treatments. Critics object that apparent variations in “aura” can be accounted
for by mundane physical factors, such as variable moisture levels of objects
photographed, pressure exerted on films, and exposure length; any moist or
conductive object appears to have an aura when touching a photographic plate
connected to a high-voltage source of electricity, but the aura disappears when
photographs are taken in a vacuum, since no ionized gas is present. Surveying
the state of research on putative energy, the NCCAM concludes that “neither
the external energy fields nor their therapeutic effects have been demonstrated
convincingly by any biophysical means” to exist.8
In the absence of evidence that putative energy exists, supporters imply that
all energy, whether or not its existence can be verified, is essentially similar.
Holistic-healing publicist Kay Koontz suggests that “the idea of using energy
to diagnose and heal isn’t completely foreign to Western medicine. After all,
electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms have long been used to record
6 the healing gods

the electrical energy of the heart and brain, respectively.” If medical doctors
can use one form of energy, Koontz reasons, why not integrate other forms
into medical treatment? James Oschman, who advertises his scientific cre-
dential of a Ph.D. in biological sciences from the University of Pittsburgh (but
who left academia before receiving tenure), asserts that all “healing energy,
whether produced by a medical device or projected from the human body, is
energy of a particular frequency or set of frequencies that stimulates the repair
of one or more tissues.” Fernan Poulin, the producer of a “Chakra Meditation
CD,” defines all energy as “vibrational frequencies that travel on filaments of
ether and are directed by focus and intent.” Poulin implies the biomedical
reality of subtle energy by hinting at its involvement in biological processes
of the central and peripheral nervous systems, since cerebrospinal fluid and
electrolytes conduct electricity over the nerves. Borrowing terminology from
physics and chemistry, Poulin claims that “prana (a light particle attached to
an oxygen molecule) fuels the energy fields by the way we breathe. . . . The
vibrations that constitute thoughts and emotions enter the body via energy
centers called the chakras. These seven centers are located along the spinal
cord where there is an increase in volume of nerve ganglia and plexus plus
endocrine glands.” In Poulin’s account, distinctions between veritable and
putative energy disappear.9
Using contemporary scientific language to market metaphysics as a supe-
rior form of medicine is nothing new; it dates back at least to the fourteenth-
century Renaissance. Today’s privileged vocabularies—quantum physics and
neuroscience—lend plausibility to claims that CAM is frontier science. The
“new physics” allegedly provides an “explanatory model” for energy healing
by demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy or that reality consists
entirely of energy. A guide to Christian Reiki stresses that “physics has clearly
proven that the entire universe is composed of energy and physical matter
is a concentration of energy.” Actually, the m in Einstein’s famous equation
E = mc2 refers to mass, which physicists distinguish from matter, and there
is disagreement among physicists about the sense in which mass and energy
can be viewed as equivalent. Physicists do not have in mind “subtle” energy.
A textbook on The Theory and Practice of Therapeutic Touch (2001) asserts that
“this new physics believes that energy and mass are the same thing, every
living thing in the universe is a pattern of moving energy and that all living
beings are interconnected to all other living things and interacting with them
all the time.” The authors reason that because humans have mass, they must
also have energy; energy is always in motion interacting with other energy;
therefore, and here is the logical leap, humans can affect the subtle energy
fields of other humans. Distant healing through nonlocal (and nonphysical)
 Introduction 7

“intentions” invokes the idea that subatomic particles affect one another at a
distance. The premise that an observer affects the outcomes of experiments
bolsters the inference that human consciousness directs energy and even cre-
ates matter. The concept that everything in the universe is connected seems
to support the interchangeability of matter and consciousness. Such claims
reflect imprecise applications of physics to nonphysical concepts of energy in
a manner that resonates with popular understandings of science.10
Nonscientists have similarly become fascinated by recent research in
neuroscience investigating the physiological basis of religious experiences.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) tracks changes in the brain
produced by prayer and meditation. The Dalai Lama invited neuroscientists
to study effects of Buddhist meditation on brain structure and function.
Sympathetically reporting on this research, Amit Sood, M.D., associate profes-
sor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, calls attention to a “startling and exciting
discovery—the mind can change the brain. Software can indeed transform
the hardware. Training our mind using mind-body approaches can soothe the
limbic areas of the brain such as the amygdala, and engage areas of the brain
such as the prefrontal cortex, whose activity enhances resilience and happi-
ness, and trains executive functions.” Exponents of CAM interpret such find-
ings as evidence of a mind-body-spirit continuum and of the inadequacy of
materialistic brain models.11

Who Uses CAM, and Why?

Although newly integrated within the biomedical mainstream, CAM usage
in America is anything but new. The basic story is that holistic and biomedi-
cal healing have coexisted all along, but their relationship changed in three
stages: first, consolidation of a medical mainstream against which to define
CAM; second, differentiation of CAM from the mainstream; third, reintegra-
tion of CAM within the mainstream. This narrative is not wholly linear. There
were two waves of popular interest in metaphysical healing, in the mid-nine-
teenth and mid-twentieth centuries. Both waves reflected widespread disillu-
sionment with dominant medical and religious models and offered means of
coping with losses incurred in national wars, during which modern scientific
technologies brought death rather than healing, raising questions about the
value of scientific “progress.”
Medical and religious healing intermingled from the start in colonial America.
European colonists brought with them a mix of empirically derived medical
knowledge and folk healing then associated with “witchcraft,” “astrology,” and
the “occult.” Europeans consulted Native American and African folk healers,
8 the healing gods

perceiving them as possessing not only natural knowledge but also special access
to supernatural power. Christian clergy warned parishioners to beware religious
contamination but did little to inspire hope of healing from the Christian God.12
The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation and the eighteenth-century
Enlightenment discouraged—but did not quench—“superstitious” expecta-
tions of nonmaterial healing. One of the most influential reformers, John
Calvin (1509–1564), developed the doctrine of “cessationism” to argue (against
Catholic miracle claims) that miracles had ceased with the biblical era because
they were no longer needed to confirm the gospel. God might still heal in
response to prayer, but such healing was not miraculous, and most healing
should be expected through medical means. Clergy influenced by Calvin
taught that God sends sickness to prosper the souls of his children, so the
proper response is passive resignation. Notably, however, a fifth of Puritan
church-membership candidates described their conversions as fulfilling heal-
ing vows. Regardless of clerical teachings, people experiencing physical and
emotional suffering sought healing wherever they thought they might find it,
whether from European doctors, Christian prayer, or recourse to non-Chris-
tian healers. By discouraging expectant prayers for healing, Calvinist clergy
pushed colonists to seek healing resources beyond Christianity.13
Promoters of Enlightenment science denigrated recourse to the super-
natural to explain or cure disease, yet metaphysical healing did not disappear
with the rise of modern medicine. Colonists attempted to use their growing
understanding of natural law to wield material and nonmaterial forces to heal.
Medical textbooks recommended astrologically proper herbal preparations
and spiritually premised Native American recipes.14
Before the late eighteenth century, there was no uncontested “conven-
tional” medical system against which to define “alternatives.” Rival practi-
tioners and medical sects competed for clients. Benjamin Rush (1745–1813),
a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and a religious Universalist,
has been credited with founding the first conventional medical system in
America. The “heroic” medicine advanced by Rush made the patient the hero,
enduring invasive “therapies”—such as bloodletting, intestinal purging (using
calomel, a mercury derivative), sweating, and blistering—to “deplete” the body
of excess substances. The heyday of heroic medicine coincided with unsettling
social developments, including industrialization, urbanization, communica-
tions and transportation revolutions, and deployment of new technologies in
warfare to kill more efficiently.15
Popular dissatisfaction with Calvinist theology, heroic therapeutics, and the
social costs of modernization had by the post-Civil War era fed the growth of
“nature cures,” such as mesmerism, homeopathy, spiritualism, vegetarianism,
 Introduction 9

mind cures, osteopathy, chiropractic, and Christian Science. Health reformers

decried the corrupting influences of sedentary, indoor lifestyles and unnatu-
ral food and drink produced by “artificial civilization” and distributed by the
market revolution, a world populated by anonymous, untrustworthy manu-
facturers and tainted by invisible poisons. Sylvester Graham (1794–1851), a
Presbyterian minister best remembered for the graham cracker (which today
bears little resemblance to the whole-grain, unsweetened original), warned
that commercial bread made from processed white flour symbolized the nutri-
tional and moral bankruptcy of modernity. Graham’s interest in “natural”
foods, such as freshly baked, homemade, whole-wheat bread, arose primar-
ily not from chemical properties but from a view that natural foods preserve
“vital energy” needed for both spiritual and physical sustenance. The label
of “natural” accumulated more-than-physical valences that persist today, as
vaguely spiritual, better than “artificial” or “materialistic,” harking back to an
Edenic era uncorrupted by the Fall to sin and sickness. More Christians also
prayed for divine healing, paving the way for the early-twentieth-century rise
of Pentecostalism.16
The prestige of conventional medicine improved during the second half
of the nineteenth century. Forming the American Medical Association (AMA)
in 1847, regular physicians sought to obligate patients to obey their authority
and avoid practitioners the regulars considered “quacks.” Americans enjoyed
better health, in part through medical discoveries related to anesthesia and the
germ theory of disease, public-health measures for sewage disposal and water
purification, and building modern hospitals. In a landmark judicial ruling,
Dent v. West Virginia (1889), the Supreme Court upheld the authority of a state
medical examining board to prohibit an inadequately trained irregular phy-
sician from practicing, solidifying the ascendancy of regular medicine. The
publication and widespread adoption of William Osler’s medical textbook,
Principles and Practice of Medicine (1892), brought consistency to conventional
diagnostics.17
By the twentieth century, biomedical science had matured, and the materi-
alistic paradigm of scientific naturalism predominated. Thomas Huxley coined
the phrase scientific naturalism in 1892 to describe an empirical approach
to gathering knowledge about the material world that rejected supernatural
explanations; although scientific naturalism can simply denote empirical
methodology, Huxley had in mind a broader, philosophical commitment to
materialism that a growing number of regular doctors—in the wake of Charles
Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species (1859)—found appealing. The
AMA’s membership rolls and cultural influence increased following its reor-
ganization in 1901. In 1910, Abraham Flexner published a report on medical
10 the healing gods

education that endorsed restructuring medicine as a modern “profession.”

Individualized clinical approaches declined in favor of standardized diagnosis,
instrumentation, therapies, and a “clinical gaze” that perceived human bodies
as biological organisms that function in predictable ways. Medical authority
increased with the introduction of sulfa drugs in the 1930s, antibiotics in the
1940s, and “wonder drugs” in the 1950s. By the mid-twentieth century, scien-
tific medicine had become the most influential profession in America.18
As the medical profession became a more unified and culturally pow-
erful force, it also became a clearer target against which those dissatisfied
with the status quo reacted. Holistic healing persisted but outside the con-
solidating mainstream. As of 1930, 25 percent of American healers were
“irregulars,” many of whom were self-styled “doctors” who lacked in-depth
medical training in any school of practice and who disseminated metaphysi-
cal ideas of “spirit” at odds with medical materialism and dominant strains
of Christian theology. Alternative healers survived the regulatory assaults
of medical and religious authorities by forming alliances with oppositional
political cultures. Whole-foods and dietary-supplement movements became
popular in the 1950s. The political pull of alternative healing increased dra-
matically with the rise of the “counterculture” of the 1960s and the holistic
health-care movement of the 1970s.19
The quest of post-World War II Americans for deeper spirituality created
hunger for a “counterculture.” As the Vietnam war aggravated building frustra-
tions, people expressed dissatisfaction with American “institutions,” including
religious institutions. Some looked for revitalization within the Christian tra-
dition by participating in ecumenical—Protestant and Catholic—Charismatic
renewal and “Jesus people” movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which (like
the earlier Pentecostal movement) rejected cessationism for renewed expecta-
tion of miraculous healing. Others looked outside the bounds of Christianity
for fresh spiritual resources. The Immigration Act of 1965, an outgrowth of
the civil rights movement, removed restrictions based on national origins,
leading, for instance, to a dramatic increase in immigration from Asia. Many
immigrants were Christians, but some introduced new neighbors and cowork-
ers to traditions such as Zen Buddhism and Transcendental Meditation (TM).
Some Americans learned meditation in the counterculture and later joined
the Jesus people movement, bringing new meditation practices with them.20
The Catholic church’s Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) introduced
sweeping changes in church doctrines and practices. Vatican II accepted
Protestants as “separated brethren” and authorized Charismatic renewal.
A Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (1965)
affirmed that the church “rejects nothing of what is true and holy” in other
 Introduction 11

religions. Vatican II pushed some Catholics toward religious practices from

other traditions. The Irish Jesuit Robert Kennedy recounts in Zen Spirit,
Christian Spirit (1995) that Vatican II “swept away my old religious certitudes,”
making Zen—which Kennedy encountered on mission in Japan—attrac-
tive as a new source of “insight and discernment” that “would not be blown
away again by authority or by changing theological fashion.” Post-Vatican II
Catholics were more likely than their predecessors to practice CAM. Reacting
against this trend, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) issued
a letter to Catholic bishops in 1989, warning that efforts to pray with the body
through Zen, TM, or yoga can “degenerate into a cult of the body and can
lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experi-
ences.” In 2003, the Vatican issued A Christian Reflection on the “New Age,”
which indicts CAM practices, including meditation, biofeedback, yoga, acu-
puncture, herbal medicine, Therapeutic Touch, polarity massage, psychic
and crystal healing, nutritional therapies, homeopathy, and chiropractic. The
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine singled
out Reiki in 2009 guidelines, expressing concerns about Buddhist roots and
warning that attempts to “Christianize Reiki by adding a prayer to Christ” do
“not affect the essential nature of Reiki.” Despite such cautionary statements,
many post-Vatican II Catholics—who were on the whole increasingly prone to
dissent from Church teachings—explored CAM.21
Alongside changes in American religious life, the holistic health-care
movement cultivated interest in consumer choice and “natural” remedies.
By the 1970s, patients were more aware of drug side effects and frustrated
by rising costs and limited accessibility of conventional medical treatment,
depersonalization of care resulting from medical specialization, and the “pre-
sumptive expertise” of physicians who interpreted every illness within a bio-
chemical construct of disease. One acupuncture consumer, whom we will call
Maureen, recalls that she began treatment after prescription drugs failed to
alleviate headaches. Maureen’s favorite aspect of acupuncture is that she no
longer needs pills “full of chemicals”—and expensive.22
National health-care spending tripled from $41 billion to $140 billion annu-
ally between 1965 and 1975, with out-of-pocket expenses doubling. In 2009,
Americans spent $2.83 trillion, not including $363 million out of pocket—
a 26-percent increase from 2005. In 2012, the average family of four could
expect $5,091 in out-of-pocket health-care expenses for the year. Partly as a
cost-saving measure, the U.S. government extended support to CAM research.
In 1991, Congress established within the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
an Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), with a budget of $2 million. In 1998,
Congress upgraded the OAM to a National Center for Complementary and
12 the healing gods

Alternative Medicine. The NCCAM budget grew from $49 million in 1999 to
$128 million in 2013. Funding for CAM research from all NIH programs rose
from $116 million in 1999 to $300 million in 2009.23
Growing recognition of the limits of biomedicine opened space for alternatives
within, instead of as rivals against, the medical mainstream. Practices denounced
as “medical cults” in the 1960s became “alternatives” in the 1980s, achieved the
status of “complementary” medicine by the 1990s, and shone as “integrative”
medicine in the 2000s. Remarkably, the AMA—for decades the most strident
opponent of irregular medicine—led the way in this cultural revolution but not at
first voluntarily. As late as 1963, the AMA’s Committee on Quackery was formed
with the mandate “to contain and eliminate chiropractic.” The AMA lost a land-
mark court case, Wilk v. American Medical Association (1990), which forbade the
AMA to discriminate against chiropractors or other “unscientific” practitioners.
Symbolically, the AMA devoted a special issue of its official journal in 1998 to
reporting results of clinical trials of seven unconventional therapies, four of which
(chiropractic, acupuncture, yoga, and herbs) found positive effects.24
The qualified acceptance of integrative medicine helped conventional
doctors to domesticate potentially subversive practices within the biomedi-
cal paradigm. Doctors worry that many CAM users—more than two-thirds
of Americans older than fifty, according to a 2007 national survey—do not
tell their doctors. When physicians speak positively about holistic therapies or
make referrals, patients are more likely to admit to using CAM, which makes
it easier for doctors to watch for potentially dangerous interactions.25
Endorsement of CAM by some medical professionals goes beyond grudging
tolerance. An American Psychological Association summary of Complementary
and Alternative Therapies Research (2009) is frankly promotional: “Certain
CAM therapies seem to hold tremendous promise for clients with psychologi-
cal and medical conditions, not only helping them resolve symptoms but also
restoring their general health and emotional well-being. . . . My hope is that the
research that has been done and reviewed in this volume will motivate clini-
cians to consider CAM therapies for their clients.” The idea that clinicians
should consider CAM would have seemed highly unusual, if not perverse, in
the 1950s. By the 2000s, times had changed.26
The range of commonly practiced CAM options widened, and the popular-
ity of once “exotic”-sounding therapies grew—but not because of mounting
scientific evidence. In 2007, the most commonly used therapies were nonvita-
min, nonmineral natural products (18 percent of Americans), deep breathing
(13 percent), meditation (9 percent), chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation
(9 percent), massage (8 percent), and yoga (6 percent). Smaller contingents
used special diets (4 percent), homeopathy (2 percent), acupuncture (1 percent),
 Introduction 13

t’ai chi or qigong (1 percent), energy healing or Reiki (.5 percent), naturopathy
(0.3 percent), biofeedback (0.2 percent), or Ayurveda (0.1 percent). Between
2002 and 2007, the prevalence of acupuncture, deep breathing, massage,
meditation, naturopathy, and yoga increased significantly. These surges are
noteworthy because only 25 percent of systematic medical reviews concluded
that these CAM practices were effective for the conditions for which they were
used. In other words, the popularity of these once-marginal therapies grew
largely independently of scientific validation.27
There are important variations to the story of who uses CAM for what
reasons. Studies suggest that CAM users are most often white women, ages
thirty-five to fifty-five, who are better educated and have higher incomes than
the general population. Rocky Mountain residents are two to three times
more likely than South Atlantic residents to use CAM. Certain alternatives,
such as chiropractic, are favored in rural, educationally and economically dis-
advantaged areas where there is popular suspicion of medical professionals.
As many as 80 percent of conventionally treated cancer patients use CAM.
The most common reason given for CAM use is pain (38 percent). This is
unsurprising given studies indicating that a majority of Americans “live
with chronic or recurrent pain.” People in pain may try multiple therapeutic
approaches—including medically prescribed drugs, prayer, chiropractic, mas-
sage, homeopathy, and yoga—although few people report that any of these
remedies work “very well.” One survey found that 47 percent of CAM users
are not treating any particular problem; they want to maintain health, give
themselves a luxurious “treat,” or pursue a holistic lifestyle.28
People who employ one holistic method are likely to use other CAM
approaches. This is because of philosophical similarities and because holis-
tic healing is practiced in the context of relational and institutional net-
works. Practitioners of various therapies know one another, refer patients to
one another, attend the same seminars, and shop in the same health-food
stores and bookstores. Experimenting with any one CAM approach can pro-
vide a gateway to holistic worldviews. Yet just because CAM practitioners are
attracted to a common pool of activities, that does not mean that every activ-
ity with a CAM following is inherently metaphysical; not everyone who buys
herbal supplements or eats a vegetarian diet is a closet metaphysician.29

Christian America’s Other Gods

A striking illustration of CAM’s newly mainstream status is that it has gained
a foothold in the evangelical Christian subculture. According to a 2008
national survey, 76 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians, and
14 the healing gods

34 percent specify that they are “Born Again or Evangelical Christians.” In

a 2007 national survey, 36 percent of respondents identified as Pentecostal
or Charismatic. Terms for describing Christian identity derive from the New
Testament. The Greek euaggellion and the Anglo-Saxon godspel, or “good
news,” refer to preaching a message of salvation from sin and death through
Jesus Christ. When asked how to attain salvation, Jesus replied that one must
be born again through the Holy Spirit. Jesus’s disciples reputedly received
the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, a Jewish holiday fifty days after Passover, shortly
after Jesus’s crucifixion. Early Christian writers, such as the apostle Paul,
used the Greek charisma to refer to gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as heal-
ing, miracles, prophecy, and speaking in unknown tongues. Self-described
evangelicals are a diverse group expressing a range of theological, political,
and social convictions; despite media portrayals, not all evangelicals support
the Religious Right. Certain evangelicals pursue Charismatic gifts, whereas
others staunchly defend cessationism. Some readers may be surprised that
18 percent of self-identified born-again/evangelicals are Catholic. Many
African-American Christians share theological convictions with evangeli-
cals but reject the label because of the historical relationship between many
evangelicals and slavery. Nevertheless, evangelical self-identity can be cor-
related with certain theological beliefs: that God provided a way for forgive-
ness through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus; that the Bible is the
inspired word of God; that Christianity involves conversion to Christ; and that
Christians should encourage non-Christians to become Christians.30
This book is about the eclectic healing practices of Americans. I single
out evangelical and other theologically conservative Christians as a case
study—although other cultural or religious groups could have been selected
instead—because evangelicals provide a barometer for the mainstreaming of
once-marginal cultural practices. Evangelicals have been described as “cultur-
ally adaptive biblical experientialists,” who seek a transformative presence in
culture while maintaining biblical standards of purity for themselves. These
are Christians who appropriate non-Christian resources from their surround-
ing culture to evangelize outsiders and edify believers and also use the Bible
as a safeguard against cultural contamination. Since the mid-twentieth cen-
tury, evangelicals have been particularly concerned to guard against “Eastern”
religions and the “New Age.” Yet evangelicals accepted CAM despite its ties to
non-Christian religions and metaphysical spirituality.31
Evangelicals tend to be highly attuned to perceived threats to theologi-
cal orthodoxy, which is why many of them back public campaigns to reclaim
the heritage of a “Christian America.” The Religious Right angers progres-
sive America by its crusades against the allegedly national “sins” of abortion,
 Introduction 15

same-sex marriage, and religious relativism, while calling for a return to a

golden age when America was once a Christian nation. Despite such rallying
cries, America was not founded by orthodox Christians who set out to base
government on Christian principles. Neither the Declaration of Independence
nor the Constitution mentions the Bible or Christianity. Most of America’s
founding fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and
Benjamin Franklin, were Deists who denied that God revealed himself in the
Bible and rejected Jesus’s virgin birth, miracles, atoning death, and resurrec-
tion. Many of the founders were also Freemasons. Masonic ritual not only
draws on Christianity but also contains references to other deities, including
the Canaanite god Baal and the Egyptian god Osiris. When Christian leaders
call for a return to America’s founding principles, they forget the enslavement
of African-Americans and the disenfranchisement of blacks and women.32
The Christian America narrative veils one of the most prominent themes
in the Hebrew Bible. In the biblical narratives of God’s relationship with his
chosen people Israel, prophets chastise God’s people for repeatedly turning
aside from undivided worship of Yahweh to seek help from gods of surround-
ing nations or through “divination,” defined as manipulation of spiritual
forces to control the physical world. God even—shockingly, to modern sen-
sibilities—commanded the Israelites to kill Canaan’s indigenous inhabitants
lest the Israelites be lured into worshipping their Baals and Asherahs,
which promised fertility, health, and protection. Moses reputedly warned
the Israelites as they entered the promised land that “the LORD your God
will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess.
But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, and after they
have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring
about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods? We will do
the same.’ You must not worship the LORD your God in their way.” Yet the
Israelites “embraced other gods,” suffered judgment, in desperation sought
Yahweh, and, once the crisis had passed, returned to following other gods.
Community members responded hostilely to prophets such as Jeremiah who
denounced religious pluralism because their neighbors’ gods seemed effec-
tive. The Israelites did not want to stop burning incense and pouring out
drink offerings to the Queen of Heaven, because when they sought help from
multiple spiritual sources, they had “plenty of food and were well off and suf-
fered no harm.”33
Deploying the narrative of America’s Christian origins against the idolatry
of the “other” eclipses ironies of Christians’ own therapeutic and spiritual
explorations. The narrative casts modern Christians as successors to bibli-
cal characters. In the hermeneutic tradition of typology, seventeenth-century
16 the healing gods

Puritans became the New Israel, and the New World became the New Canaan.
God made room for the Puritans by removing America’s idolatrous indig-
enous inhabitants, through disease and warfare, as God fought his chosen
people’s enemies and cleared the continent to establish America’s manifest
destiny. America would be a city upon a hill that all of Europe could see so
that they would have a chance to repent of national sins that courted divine
judgment. Today, the narrative warns, America is itself in danger of national
judgment because of a politically powerful liberal agenda represented by
President Barack Obama that supposedly promotes abortion, the idolatry
of Molech; same-sex marriage, the idolatry of Sodom; Islam, the idolatry of
Ishmael; and the New Age, the idolatry of Egypt and Canaan. The enemies
endangering God’s blessing on America are said to be those in the liberal
fold. All the while unacknowledged is Christian America’s invocation of
“gods” of health.34
The myth of a Christian America makes opaque the enemies within. There
is a disjunction between seventeenth-century “jeremiads,” Puritan sermons
modeled after those of the prophet Jeremiah to lament the present generation’s
declension from the faith of the fathers, and prophetic denunciations of today
that envision conservative Christians as an embattled remnant standing firm
against liberal assaults. Modern prophets lament the declension of the other
rather than the self. Evangelical sermons warn against making money, work,
television, or material goods into “idols,” since there are presumably no real
idols in evangelical America. No one puts up altars to Baal or erects Asherah
poles in backyards these days. Evangelicals would worry about burning incense
in a Hindu or Buddhist temple, but these are still viewed as foreign, minority
religions on the outskirts and safely disconnected from mainstream Christian
America. The idea that America is “God’s nation,” represented by “God Bless
America” and “In God We Trust,” solidifies the common though empirically
unsupported view that Christianity is American and other religious and spiri-
tual beliefs are un-American. Regardless of whether one thinks evangelicals
should be more or less affirming of religious pluralism, it is ironic when the
same Americans who publicly display themselves as pillars in a Christian
nation pursue health practices that embody divided allegiances.35

Who Needs to Know?

This book is for CAM consumers, health-care providers, policy makers, judi-
cial interpreters, and professional scholars. All of these groups need to know
not just whether CAM works but also why it is supposed to work, because
CAM bears on both health and religion.
 Introduction 17

A pattern that emerges in the following chapters is that those exploring

CAM—often because they are still suffering despite seeking help from con-
ventional doctors or churches—begin by restricting participation to “purely
physical” practices or substituting Christian for metaphysical meanings. But
the processes and contexts of CAM’s mainstreaming constrain consumer
agency. This book presents evidence that certain CAM promoters engage in
self-censorship, fraud, deception, or manipulation, misrepresenting or delay-
ing introducing metaphysical concepts until after novices have been attracted
by physical benefits. As practice deepens, participants experience subtle coer-
cion to incorporate a broader range of meanings, resulting in unintended
shifts in beliefs. Imbalances in knowledge and power between CAM providers
and clients particularly impede the autonomous decision making of vulner-
able groups, such as children, the elderly, and the seriously ill. Many consum-
ers do resist coercive pressures and contest presented interpretations of CAM
by ascribing their own meanings. Yet participation in relatively mainstream
CAM practices increases comfort with vitalistic premises, providing entry
to practices that individuals once regarded skeptically. Because this progres-
sion occurs gradually, participants—even those who at the outset reject meta-
physics—may slip into metaphysical worldviews without making informed
decisions.
Twenty-first-century Americans are not unique in their propensity to
mix and match therapeutic options from diverse philosophical and religious
frameworks or simultaneously to hold incommensurate beliefs that serve dif-
ferent practical functions. When people need healing or desire better bodies
and more peaceful minds, it is unsurprising that they look around for help.
The impulse to draw eclectically on medical and religious resources to pursue
health can be found in all eras and people groups. Indeed, many Americans
celebrate pluralism. There is nothing remarkable about combinative practices,
except when exhibited by adherents of monotheistic religions that strictly pro-
hibit seeking help from “other gods.”36
Although evangelicals are in principle committed to shunning religious
eclecticism, they can be just as eclectic as anyone else when healing is at stake.
When people, evangelical Christians included, need healing or want better
health, the urgent—and legitimate—question of which health-care choice
works best overshadows theoretical concerns about why therapies work. If
Christians experience cognitive dissonance, desire for benefits prompts them
to rationalize, rather than change, therapeutic choices. In what scholars term
“lived” religion, people select, negotiate, and create from available options as
they confront life’s complexities. It is, nevertheless, paradoxical when groups
that strenuously eschew theological pluralism embrace therapeutic pluralism,
18 the healing gods

when doing so leads them to engage in the very theological combinativeness

they so assiduously sought to avoid.37
Noting the general tendency of people to negotiate their own logical
inconsistencies does not clarify what it is about a particular cultural context
that makes people willing to combine certain contradictory impulses but
not others. A primary goal of this book is explanation rather than judgment.
Numerous books about CAM have been published in recent years. Many
books seek either to promote or to condemn holistic healing. My perspective is
rather that of a cultural and religious historian and interpreter puzzling with
the incongruities, overlaps, and contradictions that make culture an interest-
ing object of study.
I stumbled on this project while working on a previous book for which
I interviewed pentecostals about their divine-healing practices, during the
course of which informants surprised me by volunteering information about
their love for CAM. Intrigued, I spent nine years combing vast pro- and anti-
CAM literatures—books, scholarly journals, popular newspaper articles, Web
sites, and audiovisual resources; clinical studies, medical review articles, and
theories of informed consent and biomedical ethics; constitutional jurispru-
dence; and sociological and ethnographic research. I observed CAM practices,
distributed surveys, interviewed dozens of CAM participants and critics, and
supervised research assistants as they observed and interviewed dozens more.
Working on a topic for which new sources appear almost daily feels like trying
to shoot a moving target. It is inevitable that this book will leave out relevant
sources published too late for my consideration. It is equally impossible to
cite even the majority of relevant sources without alienating length-conscious
publishers and readers; references are restricted to short-form notes and a
pruned-down bibliography.38
Rather than render a verdict about whether particular CAM practices are
intrinsically good or bad, this book reveals unsuspected implications of unre-
flective therapeutic eclecticism for health, religion, and democracy. At stake are
informed decision making in the health-care market and boundaries between
religion and government in a pluralistic society. Holistic health care raises
ethical and legal questions of informed consent, protection of vulnerable pop-
ulations, and religious establishment—affecting values of personal autonomy,
self-determination, religious equality, and religious voluntarism—at the heart
of biomedical ethics, tort law, and constitutional law. On an individual level,
health-care consumers need to understand not only medical risks and benefits
but also factors bearing on long-term goals and values, including religious
commitments. Health-care providers have a responsibility to inform patients
if those providers have reason to believe that using CAM may influence
 Introduction 19

patients to make different religious choices from those they would make oth-
erwise. Patients are responsible for investigating options, because for choices
to be free, they must be made with understanding. On a societal level, CAM’s
mainstreaming presents challenges to those accountable for safeguarding
consumer rights and religious disestablishment. Health-care educators, policy
makers, and courts need to understand the premises upon which CAM is
based to determine how or where CAM sponsorship is suitable.

Overview
Chapter 1—“Is CAM Religious?”—argues that “religion” should be defined
broadly enough to encompass both spiritually premised bodily practices and
theological creeds. The chapter illustrates how certain CAM providers take
inspiration from metaphysical spirituality fashioned in Europe and North
America and manifold religious traditions, such as Taoism, Buddhism, and
Hinduism, forged in Asia, and it explains why practitioners downplay CAM’s
religious aspects in favor of efficacy and nonsectarian spirituality.
Chapter 2—“Yoga: I Bow to the God within You”—takes yoga as a case
study to develop the claim that CAM is religious. The chapter demonstrates
that although practitioners describe yoga as secular exercise and universal
spirituality, doing yoga encourages adoption of religious meanings. Because
many Christians define religion in terms of intellectual creeds rather than
bodily rituals, they do not recognize yoga as religious and are unduly optimis-
tic about the ease of refashioning yoga from “Hindu” to “Christian” simply by
relabeling it as such. This raises the more general question of whether CAM
and Christian worldviews converge.
Chapter 3—“Is CAM Christian?”—shows how CAM worldviews differ in
significant respects from worldviews historically held by many theologically
conservative Christians. Yet the reasoning processes used by evangelicals
have led increasing numbers of them to CAM. Evangelicals characteristically
guard against theological contamination while appropriating non-Christian
resources for Christian purposes. They classify practices either as legitimate,
religiously neutral science or as illicit “New Age” spirituality or “Eastern” reli-
gion based on whether the “roots” and “fruits” are good. Paradoxically, fear of
contamination from investigating Eastern religions and the New Age made
evangelicals more likely to engage in practices premised in non-Christian
worldviews without realizing it, leading to unintended theological shifts.
Chapter 4—“I Love My Chiropractor!”—takes as a case study Christian
defenses of chiropractic. Despite rationalizations motivated by unmet needs
for effective pain relief, chiropractic philosophy is premised on metaphysical
20 the healing gods

spirituality. Chiropractic became mainstream as publicists employed vocabu-

laries that reconstituted a philosophical alternative to Christianity as scientific,
spiritual, and Christian, while continuing to frame chiropractic as metaphysics
for sympathetic audiences. Evangelical patients who worried about theological
orthodoxy yet wanted pain relief reclassified chiropractic from an illegitimate,
New Age spiritual practice to a legitimate, scientific complement to medicine
and prayer for divine healing. Crucial to chiropractic’s acceptance among
Christians as religiously neutral science is its apparent efficacy. This leads to
the larger question of whether there is scientific evidence that chiropractic—
along with other forms of CAM—is effective and safe.
Chapter 5—“Does CAM Work, and Is It Safe?”—argues that most CAM
practices lack scientific evidence of efficacy and safety, but CAM has become
mainstream despite, rather than because of, the scientific evidence. This is
because CAM promoters used scientific-sounding language, published a grow-
ing volume of relatively poor-quality studies, and made claims that exceed the
evidence, strategies that conventional doctors also sometimes use to promote
their own services. Consumers want to believe that CAM is scientifically vali-
dated because they need healing, and conventional medicine too often fails to
cure and entails serious side effects. The chapter distinguishes among varieties
of CAM for which there is more or less scientific support and indicates how
research favoring the efficacy of certain therapies classed as CAM implies the
efficacy of all of CAM, whether or not there are plausible physical mechanisms
or demonstrable effects.
Chapter 6—“Acupuncture: Reclaiming Ancient Wisdom”—contends that
Americans embraced acupuncture because they perceive it as an ancient, sci-
entifically backed supplement to modern medicine. There is more medical
evidence buttressing acupuncture than there is for many CAM approaches,
but the evidence is weaker than many people suppose. Boosters succeeded in
bringing acupuncture into the American health-care system—and securing
approval from Christians—by using ancientness to imply efficacy, substitut-
ing medical for Taoist explanations of why acupuncture works, and down-
playing specific mechanisms in favor of clinical studies reporting benefits.
Nevertheless, systematic reviews of the medical evidence do not warrant the
conclusion that acupuncture is effective or invariably safe. Acupuncture’s
mainstreaming did not depend primarily on scientific validation, and this
suggests the broader question of what other factors account for CAM’s
mainstreaming.
Chapter 7—“How Did CAM Become Mainstream?”—explains how CAM
has been integrated into secular and Christian health-and-wellness markets
even though it is religious, not particularly Christian, and lacks scientific
 Introduction 21

evidence of efficacy and safety. There is both demand for CAM and ample sup-
ply. Many people who need healing have failed to find help from conventional
doctors or Christian churches. As health-care consumers looked for choices
that offer more than biomedicine alone, CAM providers marketed products
and services as nonreligious, though spiritual commodities backed by scien-
tific research. Readily available in secular settings and targeted to multiple
cultural subgroups, CAM offers something for everyone.
Chapter 8—“Energy Medicine: How Her Karma Ran Over His Dogma”—
uses case studies of Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, and Healing Touch to illuminate
processes by which CAM enters medical and Christian mainstreams. Energy
healers draw on Buddhist, Hindu, and Western metaphysical traditions in
treatment and training. Yet practitioners depict energy medicine as scientific
and spiritual but not religious to win audiences of hospital administrators and
patients in pain. Predominantly female practitioners disempowered by male-
dominated medical and Christian professions hide their metaphysics to gain
access to mainstream medicine. This leads to a final question of the signifi-
cance of mainstreaming processes.
The book’s conclusion asks, “Why Does It Matter If CAM Is Religious (and
Not Christian)—Even If It Works?” I argue that focusing on whether CAM
works obscures religious assumptions about why CAM should work. There
are important ethical and legal implications for individuals and society that
merit consideration by CAM consumers, health-care providers, policy mak-
ers, and courts. The problem identified is not the mainstreaming of CAM
per se but rather the processes involved and the contexts of CAM sponsor-
ship. Certain CAM providers conceal CAM’s religious dimensions—resort-
ing to self-censorship, fraud, deception, or manipulation—to avoid offending
clients or to induce religious transformations. Consumers, understandably
preoccupied by pragmatic goals of relieving pain or improving health, engage
in CAM without investigating religious premises. If certain consumers
knew more about CAM, they might not consent to participate. Yet the act of
participating can influence consumers to modify beliefs, leading to unpre-
meditated religious reorientations. These processes compromise personal
autonomy and self-determination and impede the informed decision mak-
ing necessary for healthy operation of American economic and political sys-
tems. Misrepresenting CAM to enhance palatability violates patient rights.
Government endorsement of CAM—through public schools and direct fund-
ing—disrespects religious equality and religious voluntarism and may de
facto result in unconstitutional establishment of religion.
 1
Is CAM Religious?

during an average week, Americans of every religious background may

take a class in yoga or t’ai chi at the gym, get a chiropractic adjustment or an
acupuncture treatment at a medical office, practice mindfulness meditation in
the workplace, relax with shiatsu massage at a mall spa, eat a diet that balances
yin and yang, and then return to church, mosque, or synagogue on the week-
end, not noticing, or at least not discomfited, that they have been practicing
religion all week long (see figure 1.1).
This chapter contends that much of CAM is religious, but few people rec-
ognize it as such, or if they do, practitioners downplay religion in favor of effi-
cacy and nonsectarian spirituality. The term religion should be defined broadly
enough to encompass religious traditions that emphasize bodily practices above
intellectual creeds and “spirituality” untethered to discrete religious traditions.
Particular CAM practices reflect selective interpretations of metaphysical spiri-
tuality constructed in Europe and North America and/or complex religious tra-
ditions formed in Asia, including Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

What Is Religion?
This book offers a relatively broad definition of religion as including not only
theistic beliefs but also bodily practices perceived as connecting individuals
with suprahuman energies, beings, or transcendent realities or as inducing
heightened spiritual awareness or virtues. Such a definition does not sharply
distinguish between religion and spirituality, both of which make metaphysi-
cal assumptions about the nature of reality. This broad definition can be jus-
tified by the diversity of human experience and the need to account for the
variety of ways in which people set apart that which seems sacred from the
profane.1
 Is CAM Religious? 23

figure 1.1 Yoga, t’ai chi, and healing spa next door to Edward Jones Investments
in an urban strip mall, 2011. (Photograph by author)

Protestant dominance in America bred narrow definitions of religion,

with Christianity as the standard against which everything else is measured.
Protestantism is centrally concerned with language. Sixteenth-century reform-
ers emphasized the primacy of the Word of God, revealed in the Bible, and of
faith in the gospel message. René Descartes (1596–1650) advanced a dualistic
model of the material world as distinct from “mind” or “spirit.” Protestants
defined material bodies and bodily practices as less intrinsically religious than
correct doctrines. Protestants do consider certain practices sacred, but what
one believes or says during the practice confers meaning: “This is my body
given for you; do this in remembrance of me” in communion; “I baptize you
in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”; “I now pronounce you man
and wife.” Catholics have a higher, sacramental view of religious practices as
physical means that communicate supernatural grace. Perhaps for this rea-
son, the Catholic church has criticized CAM as religious, while Protestants
coded CAM as nonreligious science, exercise, or nutrition.2
Labeling a practice “non-Christian” does not make the practice nonreli-
gious. Word-oriented Protestants tend to read their textual bias onto other reli-
gions, placing more emphasis on “sacred texts” of other traditions than many
(particularly nonelite, often illiterate) participants place on them. By Protestant
24 the healing gods

reasoning, religions that do not emphasize doctrines, creeds, church services,

or worship of a single deity may not seem to be religions at all. Protestants
have been prone to misunderstand embodied traditions in which practice is
itself an essential expression of religious devotion, while doctrines may play a
relatively minor role. For many Hindus and Buddhists, for instance, religious
significance may come directly in the doing, rather than secondarily in believ-
ing or saying something while performing bodily or mental practices. This is
because many people understand knowledge of the divine to be experiential,
rather than merely intellectual. If body and spirit are not separable catego-
ries but aspects of each other, then bodily practices can be both spiritual and
physical. From such a perspective, it would make little sense to isolate bodily
practices from spiritual purposes.3
Labeling a practice “spiritual” does not make the practice nonreligious.
When many people in the United States think of religion, they think first of
Christianity. They may also think of guilt-inducing proscriptions on behav-
ior and requirements that adherents regularly attend church, intellectually
assent to doctrines or recite creeds, and legalistically follow rules that seem
applicable only to a culturally circumscribed group. Many Americans (includ-
ing many Christians) want to distance themselves from this kind of religion.
The term spirituality, by contrast, denotes an individual’s private seeking after
sacred meaning untethered to public adherence to traditional religious institu-
tions, doctrines, creeds, or rituals. In lived experience, religion and spiritual-
ity often intermingle. According to public-opinion polls in the 2000s, most
Americans self-identify as both spiritual and religious. In one survey, a mere
10 percent of Americans said they were spiritual but not religious, and 17 per-
cent described themselves as religious but not spiritual; 57 percent identified
with both labels. More important, both religion and spirituality fulfill many of
the same functions, for instance, affirming a person’s place in the cosmos and
offering a sense of purpose, meaning, and hope.4
Certain CAM promoters find it advantageous to present CAM as spiritual
instead of religious. This allows boosters to court audiences of evangelicals
and adherents of other (or no) religions. The basic strategy involves claiming
that “ancient” CAM practices predate the rise of specific religions, identifying
CAM with universal spirituality, and denying that it conflicts with any religion.
Declaring that practices are spiritual but not religious does not, as if by fiat,
necessarily remove religious meanings. Neither does asserting that practices
are “universal” and thus suitable for people of any or no religion automatically
resolve potential tensions.
Labeling a practice “science” does not make the practice nonreligious.
Americans who envision science and religion as nonoverlapping magisteria
 Is CAM Religious? 25

may not grasp the intertwining of the two in certain comprehensive world-
views. In traditional Chinese culture, there was no separate word for religion
because religious and medical concepts of health worked together, with reli-
gion providing a theory and empiricism contributing a method for obtaining
knowledge. One of the earliest-known texts on herbalism is the Chinese Pen
Ts’ao, “The Great Herbal” (c. 2700 b.c.e.). The presumed author, Shen Nung,
is a mythical figure revered as “father of medicine” and “god of agriculture.”
He reputedly used empirical methods to create a pharmacopoeia by tasting
and classifying 365 herbs into a “superior” or nontoxic group, a “medium”
or “slightly toxic” group, and an “inferior” or poisonous, group. But this tax-
onomy was guided by metaphysical assumptions, for instance, that herbs are
potent because they correspond to organs in a mysterious way or drive harm-
ful spirits away.5
Non-Christian religious practices have been marketed as science to offset
American fears of religious contamination. The introduction of Zen Buddhist
meditation to America provides an apt example. Soyen Shaku (or Shaku Soen;
1860–1919), credited as the first Zen missionary to America, traveled from
Japan to the World Parliament of Religions at the Chicago World’s Fair of 1893.
As backdrop to this convocation, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859)
provoked new questions about the relationship between science and religion
just as Americans were becoming aware of diverse religious traditions, such
as those that came to be called Hinduism and Buddhism. As the historian
Richard King has observed, Westerners were prone to ask, “How scientific is
Buddhism?” and Asian Buddhists used the opportunity to frame Buddhism as
compatible with science and thus superior to Christianity. Western enthusiasts
and Asian modernizers downplayed seemingly “idolatrous,” “superstitious”
beliefs, focusing on techniques such as zazen, a form of sitting meditation
practiced with eyes cast down and lightly focused, sometimes facing a blank
wall, while learning to “think nonthinking” or exhibit “no-mind” (mu-shin) on
a moment-to-moment basis.6
Soyen recognized late-nineteenth-century Americans’ enthusiasm for
science and their search for universal spirituality and common ground
among religions, adapting Zen accordingly. Using the language of “natural
law” and “moral law,” Soyen claimed that the Buddha’s teachings “are in
exact agreement with the doctrines of modern science” in accessing ulti-
mate reality. Soyen’s student D. T. Suzuki (1870–1966) published twenty
English-language books that selectively rendered the essence of Zen spiri-
tuality as pure experience and unmediated encounter with reality, thereby
severing Zen from Buddhism or any specific religion. This interpretation
helped subsequent popularizers—such as Ruben Habito (a former Jesuit
26 the healing gods

priest) and founding teacher at the Maria Kannon Zen Center in Dallas,
Texas—to “assure everyone concerned that Zen does not threaten a healthy
faith in the ultimate as expressed in the Christian tradition,” since Zen is
“an invitation to a direct experience, and the only thing that is required is
a willingness to engage in that journey of self-discovery.” Such selective
characterizations of Zen as congruent with science and shared spirituality
widened Zen’s appeal.7
By the late twentieth century, Zen had become a mainstay of popular cul-
ture, particularly among white, middle-class, highly educated Americans.
Book titles beginning with the phrase Zen and the Art of append a countless
variety of objects, such as Golf, Motorcycle Maintenance, Information Security,
Pottery, Stand-up Comedy, Murder, Vampires, Cooking, Gardening, Running,
Fly Tying, Sharemarket Investment, Crossword Puzzles, Falling in Love, Poker,
Knitting, Raising Chickens—the list seems endless.8
Despite frequent disavowals that CAM is religious, attested benefits of
CAM resemble benefits commonly attributed to religion. The Mayo Clinic is
reputedly one of the best medical centers in the world; it has also taken a lead
in promoting CAM—for more-than-medical reasons. The Mayo Clinic Book
of Alternative Medicine (2010) identifies the “best integrative therapies.” This
guide awards a “shining green light” to safe and effective “mind-body” prac-
tices, including meditation, t’ai chi, yoga, progressive muscle relaxation, and
guided imagery. The explicit reason is that such practices provide a “guide to a
higher purpose. These practices are thus not an end in themselves.” The goal
is cultivating “values of peace, forgiveness, compassion, selflessness, integrity
and love” that will “unfold the deeper, kinder person that is within all of us”
and “transform you into an embodiment of wisdom and love.” Mind-body
medicine frees the mind from the “prejudices” of “excessive negative thoughts
and the related state of mindlessness. The hope is to bring your attention to
the splendor of the present moment in a state of acceptance that empowers
you to engage in meaningful action.” Mindfulness restores appreciation of the
“beautiful world” and cultivates “a higher meaning to life, gratitude and inter-
connectedness.” References to such concepts as higher purpose, meaning,
and values such as love and compassion blur distinctions between medicine
and religion. Indeed, the book advises patients, “if you are exploring organized
religion, remember to consider a variety of different faith traditions.” Sold as
a guide to alternative medicine, the text dispenses a religious prescription.9
Certain CAM practices may fulfill similar functions to religion. The
Japanese term karate-do is translated as the “way of the empty hand,” with do
referring to a path of spiritual self-development shaped by Zen Buddhist and
Taoist concepts. Karate is believed to have developed on the island of Okinawa
 Is CAM Religious? 27

around the fourteenth century, as residents combined wushu, or martial disci-

plines, learned from neighboring China with peasant self-defense techniques,
later adding Japanese martial techniques, bujutsu, governed by the code of
bushido, or “way of the warrior,” an ethical guide. Karate is today practiced
within the social environment of the dojo, or practice hall. The traditional gar-
ment, or gi, worn by karateka, or practitioners, is white, because in Japanese
culture, this color symbolizes death, emptiness, purity, absence of ego, and
single-minded commitment. Karateka recite ethical codes, execute stylized
techniques in the context of hierarchical social relations, and end sessions
seated formally, eyes closed, performing zazen. In the assessment of John
Donahue, a scholar who has trained in four karate dojos over seven years,
desire for self-defense skills or physical fitness may at first attract American
students, but the “more complex” goals of karate are “spiritual.” The “mysti-
cal, quasi-magical dimension” of karate is never far from its appeal. Donahue
considers karate to be like religious ritual in that it provides a “highly struc-
tured and symbolic activity that facilitates the focus of psychic and physical
energy to create a flow experience.” Karate “possesses an aura of morality,
although it requires no specific adherence to creed or rules of human behavior
outside of the microcosmic social universe of the training hall.” Karate offers
ritually and ethically satisfying experiences without negative associations of
religious creeds and rules.10
All of the above examples notwithstanding, labeling a practice “CAM” does
not make the practice religious. There is diversity among and within CAM
approaches, which may have no one founder or founding moment or tradi-
tion but multiple schools, each of which has changed over time. Although
many CAM practices have long been closely tied to Hindu, Buddhist, and
Taoist cultures, what we think of today as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism
were not always so neatly defined. Scholars sometimes use the metaphor of
a mountain to describe the relationship among the major Chinese religious
traditions, or the three “peaks” of Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism.
Although some people tried to keep the peaks separate, most remained at the
base of the mountain and drew freely from any or all traditions. Even today,
these multidimensional traditions encompass great capacity for selection and
combination.11
Some practices commonly included under the CAM umbrella may not
have any ties to religion. For instance, a distinction may be drawn between
biomedical use of herbs solely for chemical properties and herbalism, which
implies a vitalistic view of herbs as possessing spiritual qualities. Certain
Chinese herbs, such as ginger for motion sickness, have been incorporated
into the biomedical armamentarium based on clinical demonstration of safety
28 the healing gods

and efficacy. One-fourth of modern prescription drugs derive from plants.

In herbalism, by contrast, plants with healing attributes may be identified as
deities or homes for spirits or as possessing personality and temperament.
Herbalists may seek a spiritual relationship with plants from which they har-
vest herbs by asking the plant’s permission, extracting spiritual energy from
the sun or moon by gathering herbs at a particular time of day or month,
or invoking help from spirits of the deceased. Herbs can be envisioned as
absorbing negative vibrational energy or emitting vibrations and fragrances
that please the spiritual world and thus be used in teas or baths, worn as an
amulet, or shaped into a broom to sweep away harmful spirits. As herbal-
ist Rosemary Gladstar describes her diagnostic procedure: “I pray and let the
spirit of the herbs guide me.” Many herbalists believe that unless people per-
form rituals properly, herbs are ineffective.12
As with herbs, consumption of vegetarian and vegan (eliminating dairy
and eggs along with meat) diets may or may not be metaphysically premised.
Hindu writer Shamsunder Khandavalli argues that plants “contain greater
amounts of the life giving vital energies,” whereas animal foods “contain vola-
tile deceased PRANA and violent psychic impressions embedded in them due
to the extreme pain and torture endured during killing,” differences that can
allegedly “be seen through Kirlian photography.” Ethical veganism has been
associated with Jainist and Buddhist concepts of compassion. By contrast,
the term whole-food, plant-based diet came into vogue in the 2000s to denote
strictly dietary veganism, based on evidence that diets of whole grains, veg-
etables, fruits, and legumes may prevent or reverse diseases.13
Given the potential—but not the necessity—for CAM to be religious, it
is important to ask which CAM therapies have been shaped by particular
religious traditions and in what ways. Rather than provide a comprehensive
answer to this question, the remainder of this chapter considers examples
that illustrate points of connection between certain understandings of CAM
and selective interpretations of metaphysical spirituality, Taoism, Buddhism,
or Hinduism.

Western Metaphysics
The concept of vital energy has a lengthy, multifaceted history in the Western
world. Sources include European alchemical, astrological, and Hermetic tradi-
tions associated with Paracelsus (1493–1541), Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680),
Franz Anton Mesmer (the developer of mesmerism; 1734–1815), and the Jewish
Kabbalah and their notions of “life force” and correspondence between natu-
ral and supernatural orders of reality. Charles Poyen introduced mesmerism,
 Is CAM Religious? 29

also known as animal magnetism, in the United States in 1836; the practice
presupposes that humans possess a magnetic field that can be used to heal
disease by attracting the good or evil that endows all matter. Hypothesizing
that “magnetic ether” flows through the solar system into the human ner-
vous apparatus, mesmerists—like osteopaths, chiropractors, and spiritual-
ists—used hand gestures or “passes” to remove “obstructions” in the flow of
“spirit” or “vital fluid” and restore “harmony” between human bodies and the
cosmos.14

Osteopathy: Medicine with Something Extra

A native of Virginia, Andrew Taylor Still (1828–1917) began as a “magnetic
healer,” or mesmerist, and in 1874, he introduced osteopathy, from the Greek
osteon, or “bone,” as an improved method for removing obstructions to the
flow of “vital energy” by physically manipulating the body. Compared with
chiropractic (developed twenty years later and based on similar principles),
osteopathy more quickly shed its sectarian reputation because of the more
genteel social origins of early osteopaths and because osteopaths more read-
ily incorporated biomedical reasoning and methods. When Congress estab-
lished Medicare in 1965, it covered osteopathy but not chiropractic. According
to the NCCAM, the designation “conventional” medicine encompasses that
which is “practiced by holders of M.D. (medical doctor) and D.O. (doctor of
osteopathic medicine) degrees.” Doctors with both degrees complete similar
coursework, are eligible for the same residencies, and practice in the same
hospitals. Today, most people consider osteopathy to be nearly indistinguish-
able from biomedicine.15
Osteopathy can, however, still be distinguished by its holistic orientation.
Articles published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association in
the 1990s and 2000s identify the first tenet of “modern osteopathic philoso-
phy” as a conviction that “the person is a unit of mind, body, and spirit” and
that “health includes the health of a patient’s spirit.” The official Osteopathic
Medical College Information Book (2008) prints a testimonial by a student who
“fell in love with the DO philosophy. . . . I found the concept of treating the
mind, body, and spirit quite attractive.” Osteopathic physician Joey Shulman
stated in 2007 that “osteopaths believe that the body is a self-regulating and
self-healing organism, and when interference is removed [ for instance,
through manual therapies], the body will return to its normal state of health
and wellness.” Doctor of osteopathy and New York Times best-selling author
Joseph Mercola attests that “DOs bring something extra to the practice of
medicine,” a “‘whole person’ approach.” Mercola uses a “Meridian Tapping
30 the healing gods

Technique,” a kind of “psychological acupressure,” by “tapping on special

acupuncture meridians with your fingertips while tuning into a specific prob-
lem, using positive affirmations,” along with chiropractic and homeopathy,
because all of these practices share basic assumptions about the nature of
reality.16

Homeopathy: Dynamizing Spiritlike Power

Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) invented homeopathy (from the Greek for
“similar” and “suffering”) in Germany in the early 1800s, and the practice
arrived in the United States in 1825, soon developing into the largest medi-
cal sect of nineteenth-century America. Tradition has it that Hahnemann, a
conventionally trained village doctor, conducted experiments to improve on
standard medical practices. He administered to himself cinchona tree bark,
a standard treatment for malaria, and found that it produced malaria-like
symptoms. This led him to formulate the “law of similars,” which states that
substances that produce in healthy persons symptoms similar to those of a
disease can treat that disease. Upon testing other substances on healthy indi-
viduals, in “provings,” some substances exhibited toxic effects. To mitigate
side effects, Hahnemann diluted the substances and found that they were
even more effective in treating disease than when used at full strength. From
this observation, he derived the “law of infinitesimals,” which states that the
strongest medicines are those with the smallest dose. Hahnemann published
his new medical system as the Organon of the Rational Art of Healing (1810).
He disdainfully coined the label allopathic medicine from the Greek roots for
“other than the disease” to imply that most medicine violates the healing laws
of nature by polluting human bodies with large quantities of poison unrelated
to the cause of disease, while neglecting remedies provided by nature.17
Despite Hahnemann’s empirical methods, homeopathic theory presup-
poses vitalism. The Organon, called the Bible of homeopathy even today,
overflows with references to a “spiritual vital force.” In healthy individuals,
this “dynamistic, immaterial, vital energy, animating the material part of the
human body, reigns absolutely.” Since disease results from a disturbance in
“vital energy by dynamistic influence,” healing requires restoration of bal-
ance “by a spirit-like (dynamic) process.” Since matter is not “something
inanimate,” homeopathy works to “potentize” or “dynamize” the “spirit-
like medicinal power” latent in material substances so that it is “excited
and enabled to act spiritually upon the vital forces.” This is done through
“trituration,” grinding insoluble solids to mix them with inert substances,
or “succussion,” vigorously shaking and repeatedly hitting liquid dilutions
 Is CAM Religious? 31

against an object. Assuming that dynamizations conserve and transmit

spiritual energy, Hahnemann believed that remedies were effective even if
they were so dilute that the final solution did not contain any of the original
substance.18
Homeopathic medicines are often highly dilute. Hahnemann created the
centesimal or C scale to dilute substances by a factor of one hundred between
succussions. Modern practitioners also use a decimal or X scale to denote
dilution by a factor of ten. Over-the-counter remedies are typically available
in potencies from 6X to 30X and C, but homeopaths prescribe potencies
from 100C to 50,000C (sometimes up to 1,000,000C). At a potency of 12C
or 24X, there is a one-in-100,000 chance that a pill will contain one mole-
cule of the original substance. A 30C dilution—the potency recommended by
Hahnemann for most purposes—yields a ratio of 10–60 substance to solvent.
Critics estimate that at this dilution, a patient would have to consume 1041
pills (which adds up to a billion times the earth’s mass) or drink 1034 gallons
of a liquid medicine (10 billion times the earth’s volume) to be assured of
consuming one molecule of the active ingredient. A 200C dilution, used for
the flu remedy Oscillococcinum (derived from duck liver and heart, and sales
of which exceeded $681 million in 2011), yields a ratio of 10–400; skeptics cal-
culate that 10320 additional universes of matter would be required for there to
be one molecule in the final substance. Hahnemann, who died in 1843, would
not have been aware of such facts. It was not until 1865 that scientists first
calculated Avogadro’s number (the ratio of constituent particles to amount of
a substance). But by Hahnemann’s (and many modern homeopaths’) reckon-
ing, such calculations would in any case have been beside the point. This is
because homeopathic remedies were developed not for their chemical but for
their vital properties.19
Hahnemann’s medical theories bore the imprint of his eclectic religious
beliefs. Although a member of Germany’s Protestant Lutheran church,
he was a self-described Deist and a Freemason (Lodge of St. Andrew of the
Three Lotuses), and he took Confucius as his model. Many of Hahnemann’s
nineteenth-century followers were intellectual elites, including conventionally
trained physicians, who combined homeopathy with other spiritually premised
religious and healing systems such as Transcendentalism, mesmerism, and
Swedenborgianism. The Swedish mystic Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772)
believed he was divinely commissioned to reform Christianity by refuting
traditional Christian doctrines such as the trinity and demonstrating that
the last judgment and second coming of Christ had already occurred, based
on visionary experiences in which he conversed with angels, demons, and
spirits from other planets. Homeopathy’s first American popularizer, Hans
32 the healing gods

Burch Gram—who translated and published Hahnemann’s Characteristics

of Homeopathy in America in 1825—was a physician, a Swedenborgian, and
a Freemason. The influential Post-Graduate School of Homeopathics, estab-
lished by Swedenborgian James Tyler Kent in Philadelphia in 1890, taught
that the human “aura . . . occupies a very important place in homeopathic stud-
ies” and advised homeopaths to see “with the eyes of the spirit.” A century
later, in 1989, a homeopathic school administrator told an interviewer that “in
Homeopathy you are definitely into the spiritual realm. It is very easy to make a
religion of it. . . . Nearly all the doctors attending the faculty are involved in some
sort of spiritual practice such as anthroposophy [use of intuition to access the
spiritual world] or transcendental meditation.” To many practitioners, home-
opathy has seemed congruent with diverse metaphysical approaches.20
Today the homeopathic toolbox can include intuition, clairvoyance,
astrology, electroacupuncture, applied kinesiology (muscle-response test-
ing, premised on a correspondence between muscle strength and qi merid-
ians), iridology (interpreting the iris as a microcosm of the energetic body),
or dowsing with a pendulum (a rod-shaped device with weights that swing
to read energy patterns). Some twenty-first-century homeopaths speak of
“higher realms of the spirit world,” “magnetically charging” substances with
“spiritual energy,” putting the “essence or ‘prana’ of virtually anything into a
bottle,” and receiving “divine messages and guidance from the Holy Spirit.”
Tess, a homeopathic healer in Cambridge, Massachusetts, explains that her
remedies release “patterns of energy that are stuck” and repair “energy leak-
ages.” Homeopaths make medicines out of such unlikely substances as dog’s
ear wax, dental plaque, vomit, tears from a weeping young girl, polyurethane,
Braille paper, mercury, Stonehenge, arsenic, New York City, live scorpions,
blood from an AIDS patient, and cancerous tumors. Some homeopathic
remedies are not material but “imponderables” such as moonlight (luna),
computer-terminal rays, wind (ventus), the north pole of a magnet (magnetis
polus arcticus), and a vacuum (i.e., empty space). Homeopaths may skip the
step of diluting any substance, instead placing plain water in the center of
a geometric figure or writing down the name and potency of an intended
medicine. One homeopath administered “Electricitas 200C” to a car with
problems in the engine’s electrical system, by writing the prescription on a
sheet of paper and placing it near the engine; the remedy was credited with
enabling the car to complete a cross-country trip. Some practitioners treat
at a distance by placing remedies next to a photograph or a hair sample or
sending intentions over the telephone or via Internet chat rooms. Such prac-
tices reflect an assumption that remedies operate on a spiritual, rather than
a merely chemical, level.21
 Is CAM Religious? 33

Naturopathy: Reliance on the Cosmic Forces

Naturopathy, or “nature disease,” a term coined in 1895 by John Scheel and
popularized by the reputed father of American naturopathy, Benedict Lust
(1872–1945), is a philosophy of healing premised on vitalism. Lust described his
system as “absolute reliance upon the cosmic forces of man’s nature.” A 2010
guide to Clinical Naturopathy affirms that “a fundamental belief of naturopa-
thy is that ill health begins with a loss of vitality. . . . Vitalism is the belief that
living beings depend on the action of a special energy or force. . . . The vital
force is non-material. . . . It is the guiding force . . . different from all the other
forces recognised by physics and chemistry.” Dr. Matthews, a licensed naturo-
pathic physician who has been practicing for twenty-five years, articulates his
goal as strengthening the “vital force” within each patient. Matthews defines
vital force as something “spiritual,” which admittedly cannot be “quantified”
except by its apparent effects on the body’s “structure/anatomy,” “function/
physiology,” and “behavior/psychology.” Although using biomedical terms
such as anatomy, physiology, and psychology, Matthews equates vital force with
prana, qi, and the Holy Spirit. Despite the persistence of vitalism in modern
naturopathy, it has gained recognition as a field of medicine and as of 2013,
was licensed by sixteen states, the District of Columbia, two U.S. territories,
and five Canadian provinces. As defined by the Association of Accredited
Naturopathic Medical Colleges in 2011, “naturopathic medicine celebrates the
healing power of nature. . . . Above all, it honors the body’s innate wisdom to
heal.” Naturopathic doctors oppose the use of “toxic” drugs, vaccination, radi-
ation, and surgery, preferring holistic modalities such as homeopathy, acu-
puncture, massage, and aromatherapy.22
Methods selected by naturopaths, such as aromatherapy, share vitalistic
perspectives. According to the Complete Aromatherapy Handbook (1990), inhal-
ing or absorbing essential plant oils through the skin mobilizes the “body’s
own self-healing powers” as “essential” oils connect users with the essence,
or spirit, of the plants. Aromatherapy for the Soul (1999) avers that essen-
tial oils “have their own vibrations that connect with the frequencies in the
human energy field causing effects in the physical, emotional, and spiritual
body.” This is because “all plants have souls and spirits that guard and pro-
tect the species . . . depending on the sacredness of the purpose the plant is
put to.” Thus, “healing takes place when a person connects into the plant
spirit, becoming the plant and understanding its personality. Using spirit as
the method of transference, the plants’ energy or healing properties are trans-
mitted to the person.” By such reasoning, “pure” essential oils are the most
powerful, because they transfer the strongest vibrations of spiritual energy.23
34 the healing gods

Anticancer Diets: Nourishing the Life Force Energetically

A central premise of aromatherapy, that plants transfer vital energy, under-
girds several popular nutritional approaches to cancer. A German-Jewish phy-
sician, Max Gerson (1881–1959), borrowed from Paracelsus and European folk
medicine to conclude that organic vegetable and fruit juices, uncorrupted by
artificial chemical contaminants, nourish the life force. The Gerson therapy
prescribes the consumption of one eight-ounce glass of freshly squeezed,
organic juice (green, carrot, apple, and orange) each hour, for a total of thir-
teen glasses—the equivalent of twenty pounds of produce—per day. Gerson
added other vegetarian foods and supplements, including large quantities of
raw calf-liver extract, until evidence linked consumption of raw liver to infec-
tion and death (raw liver is still used in some clinics). Another hallmark of the
Gerson therapy is the use of organic coffee enemas, which purportedly rid the
liver of toxins. To avoid U.S. regulations, the Gerson Institute established clin-
ics outside the United States, most famously in Tijuana, Mexico; as of 2006,
Tijuana’s Hospital La Gloria charged $1,700 per week, with a recommended
stay of eight weeks. Gerson Institute staff claim a cure rate of 50 to 90 percent
for most cancers. In The Gerson Therapy: The Amazing Nutritional Program for
Cancer and Other Degenerative Diseases (2001), Gerson’s daughter, Charlotte,
urges that juices must be consumed immediately to transfer the “plant ‘vital
force,’ ‘qi,’ or ‘prana’ present in the juices when freshly made,” which “pro-
motes healing at the energetic or psychic level rather than at the cellular or bio-
chemical level.” Variations on the Gerson therapy abound, such as the Kelley
program, the Hallelujah Diet, the Breuss Cancer Cure, and the Budwig (or
“flaxseed oil/cottage cheese”) protocol. The developers of various proprietary
formulas, such as Protocel (a.k.a. Entelev/Cantron/CanCell), Iscador (mistle-
toe), and Essiac/Flor Essence, also employed vitalistic reasoning. For instance,
Protocel uses special “vibrational frequencies” to alter “energy fields,” thereby
reducing cell “voltage levels.”24
Raw foods and wheatgrass diets similarly begin with vitalistic assumptions.
Options: The Alternative Cancer Therapy Book (1992) describes raw, organic
foods as “living energy transferred to the body” and warns that “the vital energy
locked in foods is weakened or destroyed by cooking, canning, and even, to
some degree, freezing.” The developer of wheatgrass therapy, Ann Wigmore
(1909–1994), considered chlorophyll “the life blood of the planet.” If chloro-
phyll is cooked, the “sacred” 7-to-4 acid-alkaline balance is “killed,” deactivat-
ing the enzymes. (Conventional scientists discount the idea that enzymes are
alive or that enzymatic activity benefits the eater versus the organism that pro-
duced the enzymes.) It is interesting to follow Wigmore’s reasoning from the
Bible’s story that Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar recovered from insanity
 Is CAM Religious? 35

after seven years of eating grass. The biblical account specifies in Daniel 4
that God sentenced Nebuchadnezzar to eat grass like a wild animal because of
his sin of arrogance and that he recovered after repenting. Wigmore instead
credited the grass for its curative properties. Wigmore also advocated healing
through astrology, acupuncture, reflexology, hydrotherapy, and color therapy.25

Taoism
Taoism (or Daoism) emerged in China several thousand years ago and devel-
oped into diverse forms alongside other philosophical and religious tradi-
tions, including Confucianism and Buddhism. Depending on the stream of
Taoism considered, the Tao, or “Way,” has been variously described as a “guid-
ing force” or “universal intelligence,” an “unbroken wholeness,” the “neutral
essence of all life,” as “pre-existent to being and form” and “dependent on
nothing,” as “nothingness” and “everything,” and as that which is “neither
good nor evil, but just is.” The term qi (or ch’i) is often translated as “vital
energy” or “vital breath” and used to designate a subtle force or substance
thought to exist within the physiological processes of the human body and
everything else in the world. There are different kinds of qi, organized accord-
ing to eight principles, or opposing and interdependent aspects, that must be
balanced: cold-heat, interior-exterior, excess-deficiency, and yin-yang (some-
times described as male-female, day-night, heaven-earth, dry-wet, motion-
rest). There are also five phases or elements of qi: fire, earth, metal, water, and
wood. In the human body, qi presumably moves along meridians, or chan-
nels, that crisscross the body to connect yin organs with paired yang organs.
The heart stores the “mind/spirit.” The spleen helps the stomach to convert
food to qi and to raise qi/yang to the head. The lungs govern qi, the kidneys
store “congenital essence” qi, and the liver ensures the free flow of qi. The
“triple burner” is not a self-contained organ but a functional energy system
responsible for producing and circulating nourishing and protective qi to reg-
ulate other organs. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM, which includes acu-
puncture and herbalism), qigong (cultivating qi through physical and mental
training for health and longevity), and wushu (martial disciplines) unblock the
flow of qi to restore balance and harmony with the Tao.26

T’ai Chi Ch’üan: Supreme Ultimate Boxing

Wushu is commonly translated as “martial arts.” Whereas hard/external
styles (including karate, judo, kickboxing, and kempo) emphasize physi-
cal movements, soft/internal styles (for instance, t’ai chi and aikido) are
36 the healing gods

called “meditation in motion,” because they focus on internal energy flows

of qi between yin and yang states. T’ai Chi Ch’üan (or Taijiquan), simplified
as t’ai chi, can be translated as “Supreme Ultimate Boxing.” The “Supreme
Ultimate” refers to the Tao. Tradition has it that the Taoist culture hero Chang
San-feng created t’ai chi between the tenth and the seventeenth centuries and
that Chen Wang-ting (1597–1664) further developed t’ai chi out of Taoist phi-
losophy, TCM, and martial techniques. The original t’ai chi form is thought
to consist of thirteen postures, which correspond to the eight trigrams (mysti-
cal sequences of broken and unbroken lines) of the I Ching (a foundational
text for Taoism and other Chinese religious traditions) and five qi phases of
Chinese alchemy. Controlled breathing and movements, such as hitting, lift-
ing, and throwing, represent the dynamic state of yin and yang separating,
while remaining static indicates combination, resulting in circulation and bal-
ance of yin and yang. Similar assumptions undergird other martial arts and
such practices as moxibustion (burning herbs at acupoints), polarity therapy,
and shiatsu massage. After the Communist revolution of 1949, Mao Tse-tung
disseminated the idea that Chen Wang-ting originated t’ai chi, as this served
the government’s strategy of downplaying Taoist influences on Chinese his-
tory. Cheng Man-ch’ing (1901–1975) promoted t’ai chi in the United States,
where it gained popularity as a form of exercise gentle enough for the elderly.
In 2007, 2.3 million Americans, or 1 percent of the population, had practiced
t’ai chi in the past year.27

The Macrobiotic Way of Life

George Ohsawa (born in Japan as Yukikazu Sakurazawa; 1892–1966) intro-
duced many Europeans and Americans to macrobiotic eating (from macro for
“great” or “long,” and bios for “life”) with his book, Zen Macrobiotics: The Art of
Rejuvenation and Longevity (1965). Ohsawa’s diet consisted of ten increasingly
restrictive stages, until one consumed only water and brown rice, selected for
the nearly ideal yin-yang balance. One of Ohsawa’s students, Michio Kushi
(1926– ), popularized a more moderate (and nutritionally adequate) version
of the diet by publishing The Cancer Prevention Diet (1984). Kushi begins with
the premise that “our body is constantly being composed of, and sustained
by, Ki (also known as Chi) energy . . . running through the meridians. That
stream is going toward the inside where it creates energy centers known as
chakras . . . our spiritual and mental body.” Macrobiotics expresses the “prin-
ciples governing the flow of energy and the attraction of opposites [which]
are known traditionally in the East as yin and yang, the primary forces of
heaven and earth that create, sustain, and animate all things.” According to
 Is CAM Religious? 37

macrobiotic philosophy, some cancers are yin, and others are yang. Yin can-
cers may be treated by eating yang foods, including cooked vegetables, fruit,
and fish. Yang cancers may be opposed by yin foods, such as raw vegetables.
Because yin-yang balance is relative, the same diet is not for everyone. Healers
may base prescriptions on “pulse diagnosis,” “ancestral diagnosis,” “astrologi-
cal diagnosis,” or “aura and vibrational diagnosis.” Macrobiotics emphasizes
correct eating, because food is “the central factor over which human beings
have the most control.” But, according to Kushi, macrobiotics is more than a
diet; the “macrobiotic philosophy offers a unifying principle to understand the
order of the universe as a whole.” Macrobiotics is a “way of life encompassing
all dimensions of living.” Although for decades Kushi opposed conventional
cancer treatments as incompatible with macrobiotic philosophy, in 2004, he
had a cancerous tumor surgically removed from his colon, after losing his
daughter and his wife to cancer, although all three Kushis had been long-term
macrobiotic adherents.28

Buddhism
Similar to Taoism, Buddhism is a complex set of religious traditions that
began in India and developed in China over the course of millennia. The “four
noble truths” are fundamental principles of Buddhism, namely, that life is
suffering, suffering originates in attachment, suffering can be ended, and
there is a path to the cessation of suffering. The “eightfold path” attributed
to Siddhartha Gautama (c. fifth century b.c.e.) involves releasing objects of
attachment, including the very “idea of a ‘self’ which is a delusion, because
there is no abiding self . . . and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becom-
ing of the universe.” The cultivation of mental and physical disciplines (right
view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
right mindfulness, and right concentration) frees the mind from the stress
of fluctuations occasioned by moving toward desires and away from dislikes
or focusing on past mistakes and future worries. Extinguishing attachments
removes the cause of suffering and prepares the mind and body for enlighten-
ment, realization of Buddhahood, or nirvana, the release from reincarnation’s
cycle of life and death.29

Mindfulness Meditation: Now Is the Only Time You Have

The term mindfulness refers to the seventh aspect of the eightfold path of
Buddhism. Mindfulness is one of a number of Buddhist approaches to medi-
tation, such as visualizing oneself conforming to the image of a Buddha,
38 the healing gods

exhibiting “no mind,” or repeating a mantra, the Sanskrit term for a special
kind of word with power to create spiritual transformation. Mindfulness cul-
tivates moment-to-moment awareness of what one is doing and can be prac-
ticed while sitting, walking, lying down, or going about daily activities.30
In Christian contexts, the term meditation is a synonym for thoughtful
reading, reflection, and personal application of scripture. The Bible promises
blessings to one “whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who medi-
tates on his law day and night.” Medieval Christian monastics practiced Lectio
Divina, Latin for “divine reading,” or contemplation of God’s Word. Christian
mystics such as John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Madame Guyon, and
Fénelon used contemplative prayer to seek consciousness of God’s presence.
Modern evangelical prayer books encourage meditating on the Bible. Debbie
Williams advises in Pray with Purpose (2006): “Look up and meditate on the
verses referenced in each chapter. . . . Meditating and ‘chewing’ on God’s Word
helps you digest and absorb what you’ve read.” Christians who have this def-
inition of meditation in mind may assume that mindfulness meditation is
essentially similar.31
The most influential promoter of mindfulness in America is Jon Kabat-
Zinn (1944– ), a European-American professor of medicine and founding
director of the Stress Reduction Clinic and the Center for Mindfulness in
Medicine, Health Care, and Society at the University of Massachusetts Medical
Center. Kabat-Zinn used his medical credentials and university affiliation to
make Buddhist meditation acceptable to non-Buddhists by downplaying reli-
gious and spiritual language in favor of simple techniques. He wrote the best-
selling Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face
Stress, Pain, and Illness (1990), with the explicit goal of making the “path of
mindfulness accessible to mainstream Americans so that it would not feel
Buddhist or mystical so much as sensible.” Meditation is, according to Kabat-
Zinn’s best-seller Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in
Everyday Life (1994), “simply about being yourself and knowing something
about who that is.” Meditation is “really about paying attention,” and since
paying attention is “something that everybody does, at least occasionally,
meditation is not as foreign or irrelevant to our life experience as we might
once have thought.” Mindfulness is “paying attention in a particular way: on
purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.” Because a focus on
the present moment seems ordinary, mindfulness appears “acceptable and
accessible” to most Americans.32
Kabat-Zinn describes mindfulness as the “heart of Buddhist meditation.”
He insists, however, that “you don’t have to be a Buddhist to practice it,” since
“its essence is universal.” The technique “stands on its own” when extricated
 Is CAM Religious? 39

from its Buddhist context and can be practiced by anyone as a “way of look-
ing deeply into oneself in the spirit of self-inquiry and self-understanding.”
Moreover, “mindfulness has little to do with religion, except in the most fun-
damental meaning of the word, as an attempt to appreciate the deep mystery
of being alive and to acknowledge being vitally connected to all that exists.”
Kabat-Zinn argues directly that “mindfulness will not conflict with any beliefs
or traditions—religious or for that matter scientific—nor is it trying to sell you
anything, especially not a new belief system or ideology.” By avoiding “the word
‘spiritual’ altogether,” Kabat-Zinn introduced mindfulness-based programs
in hospitals, prisons, public schools, businesses, and professional sports. In
2013, the Center for Mindfulness directory listed 889 such programs.33
The flagship model for teaching meditation in secular settings is Kabat-
Zinn’s eight-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program.
Kabat-Zinn bills the “stress clinic” as helping patients develop “strengths that
they already have and come to do something for themselves to improve their
own health and well-being.” The program consists of three components. In
sitting meditation, participants direct their attention to their breath, physical
sensations, thoughts, and emotions. The body scan is a guided meditation
during which participants systematically shift their attention from one area of
the body to another. The third component is “mindful hatha yoga.” Whether
sitting, lying down, or performing asanas, participants cultivate “moment-to-
moment awareness” and assume the “stance of an impartial witness to your
own experience.” Such nonjudgmental awareness purportedly relieves stress
and enhances patients’ ability to cope with their circumstances. Although
ostensibly distinct from religion or spirituality, the MBSR program reflects
metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality. Kabat-Zinn admits that
“it is no accident that mindfulness comes out of Buddhism, which has as its
overriding concerns the relief of suffering and the dispelling of illusions.” An
emphasis on moment-to-moment awareness stems from the assumption that
“our lives unfold only in moments” rather than leading toward life beyond the
present world. With this premise, Kabat-Zinn urges audiences to “remember,
now is the only time you have for anything.”34
Although MBSR largely detaches meditation from Buddhism, the con-
tent of other meditation programs designed for secular health-care settings
is overtly Buddhist. An Indo-Tibetan Program in Contemplative Self-Healing
piloted by Dr. Joseph Loizzo and colleagues with breast-cancer patients at New
York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell begins in week one with the skill of
mindfulness meditation, by presenting illness and stress as “opportunities for
self-healing” and teaching the “four noble truth framework of self-healing.”
Mindfulness breaks the “link between addictive craving and obsessive clinging”
40 the healing gods

by acting on an “extremely subtle” level of consciousness to produce “transcen-

dent insight.” By week ten, patients learn not to view death as “final annihila-
tion or judgment.” Week eleven counsels against viewing human behavior as
“predetermined by God.” Week twelve adds that peace results from acceptance
of “what is, without illusions or violence,” rather than stemming from the
“grace of God, acceptance of others or God.” Week thirteen challenges “extreme
views of the self or person as a name for the brain or as powerless creatures
of a jealous God.” Week sixteen denies that love and compassion are “solely a
matter of divine grace or duty” by depicting these virtues as “natural muscles.”
As patients progress through the course, the content becomes progressively
more direct in advocating Buddhist truths as superior to Christian doctrines.35
Retail bookstores make mindfulness and other meditation approaches
available to both the healthy and the sick in bulging inspiration and self-help
sections. Ben & Jerry of ice cream fame wrote an introduction for David Harp
and Nina Smiley’s Three Minute Meditator, in its fifth edition in 2007. The text
teaches that each person is “part of a collective consciousness which includes
all that has ever existed.” The techniques of visualization, relaxation, compas-
sion, and “don’t know” lead even casual meditators to “enlightenment.”36

Hinduism
Some people trace the roots of Hinduism back to the Indus Valley of the Indian
subcontinent several thousand years ago. We know almost nothing about the
region’s early religious practices. But as traditions developed over time, there
was considerable overlap among philosophies and practices now identified as
Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain. It is only very recently that people applied the terms
Hindu or Hinduism to themselves. Eighth-century c.e. Arab traders first used
these terms as geographical and cultural designations; nineteenth-century
Westerners used the terms to impose order on newly encountered religious
traditions that had a long history in South Asia. The oldest literature, which
nearly all schools of what is now called Hinduism take as their source and
view as the revealed words of the divine, is the large body of orally transmitted
texts known collectively as the Vedas (or “knowledge”), the earliest of which
may date as far back as 1500 b.c.e. In the post-Vedic Brahmanical tradition, the
all-pervading divine existence or reality behind everything in the universe is
Brahman, another aspect of which is Atman, or “universal spirit.” One influen-
tial school of Hindu philosophy, Advaita Vedanta, focuses on the nonduality of
Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman) and teaches paths for realizing one’s
union with the divine. By contrast, Vedanta devotional schools seek various
sorts of relationship with the divine.37
 Is CAM Religious? 41

Transcendental Meditation: The McDonald’s of the

Meditation Business
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (c. 1918–2008) popularized the practice of
Transcendental Meditation (TM) in 1960s America, when he became guru
to the Beatles and attracted other celebrities such as actress Shirley MacLaine
and football hero Joe Namath. Television personality Merv Griffin introduced
the Maharishi (meaning “Great Sage”) to Americans with talk shows in 1975
and 1977. In 1975, Time magazine pictured the Maharishi on its cover and
described TM as “the turn-on of the ’70s—a drugless high that even the narc
squad might enjoy.” Estimates of the number of TM practitioners during the
movement’s heyday range from 600,000 to 5 million.38
A goal of TM is realizing one’s unity with the divine. The Maharishi taught
that “on the level of the Transcendental Consciousness we are Divine already.”
But “although we are 100 percent Divine, consciously we do not know that we
are Divine.” Invoking the Christian strain of American culture with a twist,
the Maharishi taught that since “Christ said, ‘Be still and know that I am
God,’” the meditator should “be still and know that you are God and when you
know that you are God you will begin to live Godhood, and living Godhood
there is no reason to suffer.” As of 2013, the official TM Web site presents TM
as leading to “higher states of consciousness.” Whereas yoga may use breath-
ing or postures to reach a meditative state, TM exercises only the mind. The
basic TM practice, inspired by Advaita Vedanta, involves repetition of a mantra
for twenty minutes, morning and evening, while sitting comfortably with eyes
closed. By contrast with ascetic traditions, the Maharishi taught, it is possible
to add meditation to a normal lifestyle, which should be characterized by hap-
piness and, indeed, bliss. For this reason, best-selling author Adam Smith
calls TM “the McDonald’s of the meditation business.”39
Like McDonald’s, TM has gained a massive following using a shrewd busi-
ness model. Free introductory lectures, often held on university campuses,
recruit participants. Once prospective students are intrigued, instructors offer
an opportunity to take a fee-based course and receive a personalized mantra.
(Disaffected former practitioners charge that instructors repeatedly assign the
same mantras, which invoke the names of Hindu deities. For instance, aing
is a sound, or seed syllable, associated with the goddess Saraswati.) Advanced
TM classes promised to teach “yogic flying,” or levitating in the lotus position,
and time travel. By the 1980s, the Maharishi had used TM revenues to estab-
lish Maharishi International University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa,
and hundreds of TM centers (called Peace Palaces) across the United States
and in other countries. By the time of his death in 2008, the Maharishi had
42 the healing gods

built a business empire (including an Ayurvedic medicine company) that had

amassed him a personal fortune in excess of $1 billion, plus several billion dol-
lars in corporate holdings.40

Biofeedback: The Mystical in Gadget Form

Psychologists who wanted to emulate the ability of expert yogis to con-
trol involuntary bodily functions developed biofeedback in the 1960s.
Biofeedback applies modern medical devices, such as electroencephalograph
(EEG) and electromyograph (EMG), to give patients immediate feedback
on progress in achieving relaxed mental states and changing physiological
functioning. Electrodes and electronic lights and sounds, alongside clinical
studies reporting efficacy, make biofeedback appear to be the epitome of
modern science.41
Although it uses high technology, biofeedback’s developers envisioned
the practice in spiritual terms. As a Time magazine article described bio-
feedback in 1991, “for mechanistic Westerners, this is the mystical in gadget
form.” Pioneering researchers Elmer and Alyce Green framed their studies
of yogis in India as explorations of subtle energies related to higher forms
of consciousness in the film Biofeedback: The Yoga of the West (1974) and the
book Beyond Biofeedback (1977). The Greens were founding members of the
International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine,
the Association of Transpersonal Psychology, and the Association for Applied
Psychophysiology and Biofeedback and on the advisory board of the Universal
Awakening, “A Meta-movement that Supports the Development of Greater
Harmony, Creativity, and Fulfillment.” In a 1999 article, Elmer Green called
alpha-theta brain-wave training “instrumental Vipassana” (Buddhist insight
meditation) that enables practitioners to access planetary consciousness. In
the film Bioenergy: A Healing Art (1992), Green claimed to measure the energy
field surrounding a healer who uses Tibetan meditation. In The Ozawkie Book
of the Dead: Alzheimer’s Isn’t What You Think It Is (2001), Green interpreted
Alzheimer’s as a spiritual transition toward a higher plane of existence. Near
the end of his career, Green revealed that his vision of using science to dem-
onstrate subtle energies began at age three, when he was visited by a “High
Entity” or “Teacher,” “a glowing figure in regal robes,” who guided his subse-
quent research.42
Other biofeedback founders shared the Greens’ spiritual vision of con-
sciousness transformation. In 1980, Barbara Brown, first president of the
Biofeedback Research Society, explained the technique as mobilizing the
“universal, innate ability of the unconscious mind to control and regulate all
 Is CAM Religious? 43

physical processes.” Well-known holistic medicine professor Kenneth Pelletier

similarly observed that biofeedback produces a “profound transformation of
human consciousness.” This transformation is explicitly spiritual. According
to Donald Moss, president of the Association for Applied Psychophysiology
and Biofeedback, writing in 2002, “biofeedback teaches inner quieting. In
the stillness many individuals find emotional release and many discover the
presence of spirit.” Moss clarifies what he means by “spirit”: “Biofeedback in
this sense becomes a practical form of Taoism, a gentle seeking of harmony
in the body and in one’s world.” Moss continues, “neurofeedback may induce
states of consciousness conducive to spiritual awakening and personal trans-
formation.” Patients who use the common “alpha/theta protocol,” according
to Moss, “experience a spiritual transformation as part of the treatment pro-
cess . . . the spiritual experience of being one with God.” For such practitioners,
biofeedback techniques bring scientific technology into the service of spiritual
transformation.43

Conclusion
Although CAM practitioners have distanced CAM from “religion” by describ-
ing it as nonreligious, spiritual, and scientific, CAM fits a broad definition of
religion. Holistic healing shares traits with religion, and specific interpreta-
tions of CAM express aspects of Western metaphysical spirituality or religious
traditions such as Taoism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. Using generically spiri-
tual language to describe CAM does not, in itself, make CAM spiritual rather
than religious. Neither does borrowing vocabulary from scientists make CAM
scientific instead of religious.
The argument that CAM is spiritual but not religious—when used to reas-
sure Christians and other monotheists that they can practice CAM without
committing apostasy—makes opaque a basic disjuncture between certain
CAM worldviews and historic Christian theological traditions. Although
CAM and Christian perspectives are both in one sense “holistic,” in that they
envision material and spiritual realms as interconnected, CAM also tends
to be monistic; creator and creation, or divine consciousness and nature, are
of essentially the same substance. Sickness results when energy becomes
blocked or imbalanced; healing practices restore harmony between individu-
als and the universe by unblocking and rebalancing energy. From a monis-
tic perspective, combining elements from multiple religious and spiritual
traditions and including diverse beliefs and practices are enriching. By con-
trast, Christian worldviews have historically been dualistic, in the sense of
emphasizing the otherness of a creator God from whom the created order
44 the healing gods

became alienated through sin, defined as disobedience to a personal God;

sickness is one consequence of sin’s entrance into the world. (The term dual-
ism occasions confusion because it can also function as an antipode to holism,
by endorsing an idea, from Greco-Roman philosophy, that body is separate
from, and inferior to, spirit.) In the sense in which I am using dualism, many
Christians believe that redemption and reconciliation between individuals
and the divine is only possible through the atoning death and resurrection
of the sinless Jesus Christ, as believers appropriate grace by repentance and
faith. Many Christians consider single-minded devotion to the Christian God
and exclusion of other traditions essential to religious purity. The merger of
CAM and Christian worldviews—and integration within a biomedical main-
stream predicated on scientific naturalism (which often reflects a materialistic
and monistic worldview)—is a remarkable cultural development that invites
explanation.44
In a multicultural world, it is common for people to learn practices from
other religious traditions and to reimagine the meanings of these practices.
The same set of bodily actions may be perceived by one participant as a reli-
gious ritual with spiritual significance, whereas someone else views those
actions as a physical routine. We should not impose on people meanings they
would not themselves ascribe to their actions.
The following chapters demonstrate that the meanings participants
ultimately ascribe to their practices are often not the meanings they con-
sciously chose. This is because participating in bodily practices can change
the meanings that people assign to their practices, sometimes in subtle ways
not immediately recognized by participants. Activities that start off as non-
religious health promotion or Christian devotion may take on new religious
valences. Evangelicals may be least on their guard against practices they
would normally seek to avoid when those practices are recoded as nonreli-
gious. Offering a critique of the complicity between today’s Christians and
“global market culture,” the Harvard theologian Harvey Cox warns that “our
problem as Christians today is that although we oppose idolatry in general
terms, it is often difficult to notice the most obvious and invasive forms of
idolatry, maybe because they do not announce themselves as ‘religious.’ We
are faced with a formidable theological task. We need to uncover and unmask
the service of false gods, even—indeed especially—when they mask them-
selves in secular disguises.” What constitutes a “false god” is debatable, but
Cox astutely points out that people’s specific, apparently nonreligious, actions
can belie general statements of belief. Chapter 2 explores this theme through
a case study of yoga.45
 2
Yoga
I Bow to the God within You

brooke boon began attending “secular” yoga classes because she “just
wanted to get into shape!” Yet her teachers “routinely encouraged their stu-
dents to ‘look within’ to find their divinity. They whispered promptings for
us to seek enlightenment through oneness with the universe.” After convert-
ing to Christianity, Boon felt uneasy about the spiritual dimensions of yoga
but did not want to give up the physically and spiritually satisfying practice.
Her solution—which both resolved a personal religious crisis and proved a
commercial success—was to establish the “Holy Yoga” program in 2003 as a
Christian alternative. Boon, who lives in Phoenix, Arizona, gained an interna-
tional following by publishing a book, Holy Yoga: Exercise for the Christian Body
and Soul—marketed to Christian consumers by Time Warner’s Faith Words in
2007—and by selling related DVDs, and certifying more than 475 Holy Yoga
instructors in ten countries on three continents.1
Boon distinguishes her brand of yoga from “traditional Eastern yoga” by
contrasting the purpose of “becoming one with God” with “becoming surren-
dered to God, devoted to Him, and united with Him in purpose.” Interpreting
yoga as more than physical exercise, Boon insists that yoga’s “Eastern” reli-
gious roots are “irrelevant because in Holy Yoga, our entire intent and focus
are completely on Jesus Christ.” Boon affirms concepts found in some South
Asian religious yoga traditions: that there is a universal “vibrational fre-
quency” with the sound “Aum” or “Om” (she avoids teaching students to chant
the syllables “to dissipate fear concerning their usage in relation to worship”),
and humans are “energetic beings” whose vitality accumulates at “chakras.”
Boon Christianizes such concepts by describing them as aspects of “God’s
truth in creation.” Boon’s yoga classes look a lot like other modern postural
yoga classes, using similar poses, breath control, and meditation practices, but
46 the healing gods

replacing Hindu references with Christian language and music, Bible medita-
tions, and frequent allusions to Jesus.2
Boon is one of a growing group of Christian yoga marketers who exem-
plify a pattern in the mainstreaming of yoga in America. Yoga is contested
in today’s cultural climate, because many Americans desire the physical
and spiritual benefits that they associate with yoga yet feel wary of “Eastern”
religion. Attracting a handful of U.S. adherents as early as the nineteenth
century, yoga’s meteoric rise in popularity can be dated to the mid-twenti-
eth century. Promoters won an American clientele by denying that yoga is
religious and presenting yoga as science, exercise, philosophy, nonsectar-
ian spirituality, commodity, and Christian devotional discipline. Since few
Americans investigated yoga theory for themselves, most accepted selec-
tive descriptions as factual. Today many consumers think of yoga as having
vaguely “Eastern” or “Hindu” origins but do yoga as physical and spiritual
exercise, not because they want to practice Hinduism. Few Americans inter-
pret “health-club” yoga as religion, because its emphasis on bodily practices
instead of intellectual creeds differs from Word-oriented, Protestant under-
standings of religion. Yet, as this chapter argues, it is difficult to sever yoga’s
physical from its religious aspects. Efforts to secularize or Christianize yoga
often result in superficial relabeling rather than creation of fundamentally
distinctive practices.

Yoga in South Asian Religious Culture

When most Americans today think of yoga, they first think of postures, or asa-
nas, that make the body fit and flexible. Yet prior to the 1920s, asanas played at
most a subordinate role in most yoga practice. The history of yoga in South Asia
and globally is more complicated and interesting than most people, including
yoga aficionados, recognize. The word yoga, from the Sanskrit verbal root yuj, is
a cognate of the English yoke. An exact lineage for yoga cannot be traced, since
individual gurus passed various disciplines to their students, who in turn cre-
ated diverse styles. But many of India’s yoga traditions share a religious goal:
attaining human salvation, variously defined as release from suffering existence
and the cycle of rebirths (samsara), union with ultimate reality, realizing the true
Self, which is divine, or spending eternity in relationship with the divine.3
The earliest-known written references to yoga are in what people today
identify as Hindu texts. The Upanishads (c. 800–400 b.c.e.) and the Bhagavad
Gita (c. 200 b.c.e.–200 c.e.) describe yoga primarily as meditative disciplines,
the purpose of which is to withdraw one’s senses from the world to yoke
with the divine, or Brahman. The Gita can be interpreted as teaching that
 Yoga 47

the highest discipline, or path, of yoga is devotion through meditation on a

benevolent, omnipotent supreme being. The divine, identified with Krishna,
is “the Syllable Om,” and “He who utters Om with the intention ‘I shall
attain Brahman’ does verily attain Brahman.” The Yoga Sutras, attributed to
the Indian sage Patanjali (c. 200 b.c.e.–200 c.e.) and often honored today as
defining “classical yoga,” prescribe eight limbs: restraint (yama), observances
(niyamas), posture (asana), breath regulation (pranayama), withdrawal of the
mind from the senses (pratyahara), “fixation” or “fixity” (dharana), meditation
(dhyana), and concentration or bliss (samadhi).4
Over a period of several hundred years, a great many Hindu, Buddhist,
and Jain texts elaborated yoga theory and practice, for instance, describing
prana, or vital breath, as an external manifestation of universal spirit, Atman,
and identifying nadis, or breath channels; chakras, or wheels; and kundalini,
or female serpent energy. The nadis refer to nonmaterial energy streams, the
junctures of which form chakras, spinning energy vortexes where one can
receive, absorb, and distribute vital energy. Moving kundalini is the object of
many yoga practices. Kundalini is a force represented as a female serpent and
sometimes envisioned as a goddess, who lies dormant, coiled at the base of the
spine. Her male counterpart and lover is Shiva, who resides in the crown of
the head or brain. Practicing yoga awakens kundalini so that she uncoils and
travels up the spine, opening chakras along the way. When kundalini reaches
the sahasrara chakra, at the crown of the head, kundalini and Shiva unite, and
one attains mahasamadhi (bliss) or moksha (liberation from the cycle of birth
and death). Kundalini is closely associated with sexual energy, and physical sex
plays a role in certain (especially some Tantra) yoga forms.5
Practitioners of modern postural yoga, the form most familiar in Europe
and North America, claim precedents in hatha yoga, or the “yoga of forceful
exertion,” which emerged in India between the tenth and the eighteenth cen-
turies c.e. Medieval hatha yoga used a series of shatkarmas, or purifications
(for instance, cleansing the stomach by swallowing a long, narrow strip of
cloth); asanas, or postures; and, most important, pranayama, or breath control,
to make the body immune to mortal decay. Hatha yoga purifies and unites the
pingala nadi and the ida nadi, associated with the right and left nostrils and
envisioned as microcosms of the sun and the moon. As pranayama heats the
breath, kundalini shoots upward through the central sushumna nadi, pierc-
ing chakras to generate intense heat. For the male yogi (scholars debate the
extent to which women yoginis served the needs of yogis for ritualized sexual
fluid exchanges or acted as agents in their own yogic paths), semen stored in
kundalini’s body becomes so hot that it transmutes into the “nectar of immor-
tality,” which the yogi drinks from his own skull to gain supernatural powers,
48 the healing gods

possibly including flight, telepathy, omniscience, or an ability to take over

other people’s bodies.6
The only premodern South Asian religious order known to have self-
identified as yogis, the Nath Yogis, practiced hatha yoga. They defined the goals
of yoga to include bodily immortality, sexual pleasure, and supernatural and
political power. As India entered the modern era, many Indians and European
observers feared yogis and castigated them for choosing personal power over
yoga’s “true” purpose of liberation. South Asian yoga practitioners increas-
ingly rejected asanas because of their association with yogis, who sometimes
performed asanas as street entertainers to earn enough money to survive. By
the late nineteenth century, hatha yoga (but not other forms of yoga) had been
largely rejected by Indian elites. Paradoxically, it was Westerners enthralled
by Indian religions—particularly the metaphysical Theosophical Society,
founded by the Russian-born Helena Blavatsky in 1875—who revived hatha
yoga by reprinting neglected texts. Even so, Blavatsky found asanas distaste-
ful and omitted them from her selective re-presentation of yoga to the West,
influencing Indian Hindu modernizers to do likewise.7
Only in the 1920s did asanas make a comeback in India, in the context of
British colonial rule (until 1947) and global cultural flows among Europe, North
America, and South Asia. Beginning in the nineteenth century, metaphysically
oriented Western health reformers attracted to a variety of New Thought (an
outgrowth of Christian Science) and nature-cure movements promoted “physi-
cal culture” as intrinsically spiritual (and especially well suited to women). In
the 1920s, YMCA physical-education programs in India interpreted asanas as
an indigenous form of physical exercise conducive to spiritual development.
Sri Tirumalai Krishnamacharya (1888–1989) taught asanas as “physical cul-
ture” at the Mysore Palace in India and trained several individuals (includ-
ing K. Pattabhi Jois and B. K. S. Iyengar) who popularized yoga in the West.
Krishnamacharya developed the now-famous (and allegedly ancient) “Sun
Salutation” (Surya Namaskara) by combining practices used in worship of the
solar deity Surya with hatha yoga asanas, regional gymnastics and wrestling,
and British military calisthenics. The historian Mark Singleton argues that
postural yoga classes advertised as “hatha” yoga today more closely resemble
Western metaphysical gymnastics than Indian Hindu yoga traditions.8

Yoga Science Wins an American Audience

Yoga became popular in the United States not because droves of Americans
wanted to practice Hinduism but because yoga marketers advertised a health-
promoting, scientific technique. Yoga arrived in America in 1805, when William
 Yoga 49

Emerson, father of Ralph Waldo Emerson, published an English translation

of the Bhagavad Gita. The younger Emerson, who read widely in Hindu texts,
wielded his literary influence to raise sympathetic awareness of Hinduism
among American intellectuals. Henry David Thoreau did his best to practice
yoga during his now-famous experiment in deliberate living at Walden Pond.9
The nineteenth-century influx of Christian missionaries to India inspired a
Hindu reform movement that sought to compete, using Christian missionaries
as a model for how to spread their views to all people. The term neo-Hinduism
refers to a nationalist reform and independence movement within India with
the aims of modernizing Hinduism and recasting it as a “missionary religion”
suitable for an international audience. Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902), a
Vedanta monk, worked to persuade other Indians to abandon what he viewed
as backward religious practices, such as the asanas of hatha yoga. The World
Parliament of Religions in 1893 gave Vivekananda an opportunity to counteract
Western stereotypes of Indian culture and Hindu religion and to raise money
for philanthropic work in India. Much as fellow delegate Soyen Shaku presented
Zen Buddhism as “science,” Vivekananda framed yoga as science, meaning
that it was empirical; generations of practitioners had used it and experienced
observable results: realization of the Self, or the Brahman within. Employing
biological language, Vivekananda compared kundalini to “nerve force” and
described chakras as nerve “plexuses.” He referred to physiological structures to
confirm that the “nerve centre at the base of the spine near the sacrum” housed
dormant kundalini and that the “pineal gland” in the brain was home to Shiva.
This description appealed to then-current scientific sensibilities, given René
Descartes’s suggestion that the pineal gland is the seat of the soul.10
In arguing that Hinduism is scientific, while blurring boundaries between
science and spirit, Vivekananda borrowed from Theosophy. In an 1888 “syn-
thesis of science, religion, and philosophy,” Blavatsky had lauded “Hindu
mystics” for recognizing the pineal gland as the “eye of Shiva,” or biologi-
cal evidence that humans evolved an “organ of spiritual vision.” (Modern sci-
entists understand the pineal gland as an endocrine organ that secretes the
hormone melatonin.) A later, Indian-born Hindu, Paramhansa Yogananda,
portrayed yoga for American audiences with his best-selling Autobiography of
a Yogi (1946). Like Vivekananda, Yogananda identified yoga as science, defined
as empirical methods put toward spiritual ends: “Yoga is a system of scientific
methods for reuniting the soul with the Spirit.” The goal of yogic science is to
transcend merely intellectual knowledge and directly experience truth. This
understanding of science contrasts with how conventional scientists use the
term, but the difference was lost on the growing number of Americans whose
esteem for yoga rose as they imagined it as scientific.11
50 the healing gods

Yoga’s Secular Reincarnations

Yogananda’s warm reception in the United States after World War II marked
a new era for yoga in America. Previously, most Americans who had heard
of yoga disparaged it. Early-twentieth-century news headlines capture yoga’s
marginal religious and cultural status: “Police Break in on Weird Hindu Rites:
Girls and Men Mystics Cease Strange Dance as ‘Priest’ Is Arrested,” from the
New York American in 1910; “A Hindu Apple for Modern Eve: The Cult of Yogis
Lures Women to Destruction,” from the Los Angeles Times in 1911. Such head-
lines reflect a view of yoga as an intrinsically “heathen,” sexually threatening,
foreign, un-American, religious ritual.12
Yoga publicists breathed new life into the discipline by downplaying yoga’s
religious context while advertising health benefits and winning celebrity spon-
sorship. Indra Devi (born Eugenie Peterson in Latvia to Swedish and Russian
parents; studied yoga with Krishnamacharya in India) attracted actors and
actresses (among others, Robert Ryan and Greta Garbo) to her Hollywood
yoga studio by presenting hatha yoga as a health and beauty aid. Devi’s book,
Forever Young, Forever Healthy: Simplified Yoga for Modern Living (1953), reduces
hatha yoga to postures and breathing. Devi disregarded spiritual purposes
to avoid offending readers. Once Devi had exalted yoga’s physical activities,
her second book, Yoga for Americans (1959), reinserted religious references.
Devi described kundalini as “Serpent power,” associated with “fundamen-
tal sex energy.” She expounded that postures and breathing raise kundalini
through the “chakra system,” bringing the yogi to the “highest goal” as “his
individual consciousness unites with Universal Consciousness, and he enters
a state of ultimate bliss, called Samadhi.” Once Devi’s clients had experienced
physical benefits, spiritual rationales seemed less threatening. The counter-
culture picked up on yoga as a spiritual pursuit. Interest mounted as news-
papers broadcast the Beatles’ pilgrimage to India in 1968 to study yoga and
TM to curb their drug addiction. Still, those not yet favorably disposed to yoga
required gradual tasters.13
Television introduced a secularized version of yoga. A Los Angeles TV sta-
tion aired Yoga and You with Virginia Denison in 1961, quickly followed by
the competing program Yoga for Health with Richard Hittleman. Hittleman,
who taught yoga on TV for thirty years and wrote fifteen best-selling books,
believed that the “entire essence” of yoga is the attainment of “pure bliss con-
sciousness.” He had, however, learned from experience teaching yoga since
the 1940s that most Americans related not to spiritual enlightenment but to
exercise, sport, and health. Hittleman kept silent about the spiritual dimen-
sions of yoga, confident that performance of physical postures would prepare
 Yoga 51

students to inquire into spirituality. Cincinnati’s public television station aired

Hatha Yoga with Lilias Folan in 1974; within months, 124 other PBS stations
had picked up the broadcast. In winning a place for yoga on the air, Folan—as
she later reflected in an interview—had had to convince the television network
that “yoga wasn’t peculiar, strange and un-American, that it isn’t a religion—
that was the big one.” Folan, like Hittleman, presented yoga as a secular health
practice because she had to in order to win an audience.14
Yoga Journal was founded in 1975, with the explicit goal of convincing
people that yoga “wasn’t weird” or “voodoo.” The first issue sold three hun-
dred copies. The journal’s pool of subscribers grew to 55,000 by 1990 and
350,000 by 2007; meanwhile, the journal quadrupled its advertising reve-
nues. Yoga Journal reached a widening readership as editors selected articles
that focused on physiological benefits. When reporters broached metaphysi-
cal subjects, they adopted clinical-sounding terminology to appeal to popular
scientific sensibilities. For example, a 2011 article advocates practicing the
Sun Salutation several times during the workday to break up sitting time
and reduce risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Another article in
the same issue offers instructions for performing the “eagle” pose (garu-
dasana). The author explains that the pose is named after Garuda, a “mythi-
cal bird in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions” that carried the god Vishnu.
Physically, the pose “stretches and broadens the area between the shoulder
blades, releasing upper-back tension and opening the back of the heart. It
also stretches your shoulders, ankles, hips, and wrists.” The “inner work of
the pose” is to “open to the notion that you can find balance even when you
are all twisted up.” The article introduces spiritual nuggets amid instruc-
tions on how to do the pose and promises of health benefits.15

Yoga Becomes a Commodity

The commercialization of yoga in the 1990s and 2000s made it a mainstream
and lucrative commodity. The superstar Madonna helped make yoga a house-
hold word. In 1998, she released the CD Ray of Light, which includes sev-
eral Sanskrit chants and a song, “Shanti Ashtangi,” based on a Hindu prayer
recited at the beginning of her yoga classes. Translated, the song begins:
“I worship the gurus’ lotus feet/Awakening the happiness of the Self revealed.”
Despite—or because of—the song’s references to worship, enlightenment,
Self-realization, and bliss, the album sold 4 million copies.16
Charging fees for yoga marks it as a commodity rather than a religious
obligation. People do not pay to gain admission to church services (although
they may resent feeling pressured to make donations), but they certainly pay
52 the healing gods

to attend most yoga classes. When the Indian-born Bikram Choudhury began
teaching yoga in San Francisco in 1973, he did not charge. When Choudhury
introduced lavish fees, the popularity of his classes increased dramatically.
By 2013, certification as a Bikram Yoga teacher cost $11,400. Choudhury
copyrighted his brand of yoga in 2001, aggressively prosecuting violations.
Including sales from books, CDs, clothing, and jewelry, Choudhury boasts,
his yoga empire earns him $10 million a month. Choudhury attracted both
men and women by presenting yoga as intense exercise, producing physi-
cal strength and sexual prowess. He also appealed to spiritual sensibilities,
lecturing on the “chakra system” alongside the skeletal, muscular, and endo-
crine systems. Choudhury’s CDs include lyrics written by himself, such as “I
believe in God: it is me.” Choudhury has been known to open class registra-
tion on Easter Sunday, perhaps symbolizing that his brand of yoga offers an
alternative to Christian religious observance.17
Whatever else it may be, yoga is big business. Market researchers esti-
mate that in 2012, 22 million Americans practiced yoga—7 percent of the
total population, up from 3 percent in 1973. By 2012, Americans were spend-
ing $7 billion a year on yoga and Pilates. Mainstream retail chains such as
Walmart prominently feature yoga-related merchandise. High-end depart-
ment stores such as Dillard’s advertise fashionable and pricy yoga clothing to
“unlock your inner ‘Om.’” Designer yoga clothing is sold by Prana (bought by
Liz Claiborne in 2005), Be Present, Inner Waves, and Lululemon Athletica,
and by mainstream brands such as Nike. Yoga marketing targets healthy and
fitness-minded adults and children, the chronically or terminally ill, and the
elderly. Advertisers showcase benefits of yoga for pregnancy, weight loss, kids,
seniors, golf, dogs, and Christians. One can find yoga in community centers,
hotel fitness centers, nursing homes, and public schools.18
Because yoga has become an industry, most Americans perceive it as secu-
lar. This creates a positive feedback loop. Offering yoga for sale lends credibil-
ity to the claim that it is nonreligious, which reinforces the idea that yoga is a
fitting object for commercial exchange in a secular market.

Is Yoga Exercise or Religion?

The question of whether yoga is Hindu, religious, spiritual, or secular is hotly
disputed. When yoga supporters deny that yoga is religion, they mean that
yoga is not like Christianity. The American Yoga Association (AYA), formed
in the 1970s to manage yoga’s reputation, asserts that “yoga is not a religion.
It has no creed or fixed set of beliefs, nor is there a prescribed godlike fig-
ure to be worshipped in a particular manner.” Yoga Journal columnist Phil
 Yoga 53

Catalfo explains that yoga has “no singular creed, nor does it have any ritual
by which adherents profess their faith or allegiance, such as baptism or con-
firmation. There are no religious obligations, such as attending weekly wor-
ship services, receiving sacraments, fasting on certain days, or performing a
devotional pilgrimage.” Swamiji of the Divine Life Society affirms that yoga is
a “universal science that has risen above religion,” since “no particular dogma
is laid down. . . . It does not call a man sinner. Man is God who has lost his way
home. . . . Yoga rejects hell and heaven also.” Differences between yoga and
Christianity code yoga as nonreligious.19
Promoters further distinguish yoga from religion by presenting yoga as
pure spirituality. Claiming that yoga is older than Hinduism validates yoga
as a universal practice, untethered to any religion. According to the AYA Web
site, “Yoga actually predates Hinduism,” and although Hinduism adopted
yoga techniques, “the practice of Yoga will not interfere with any religion.”
Swamiji contends that yoga is “purely spiritual and does not contradict any-
one’s faith. Yoga is not a religion, but an aid to the practice of the basic spiri-
tual truths in all religions.” When Aseem Shukla, a surgeon and cofounder of
the Hindu American Foundation, argues that yoga can make someone a “bet-
ter Hindu, Christian, Jew or Muslim,” he means that “yoga, like its Hindu
origins, does not offer ways to believe in God; it offers ways to know God.”
The director of a yoga education program at a Midwestern Hindu temple
similarly reasons that “yoga is not a religious practice,” because it offers a way
“for all human kind” to “join individual consciousness to higher conscious-
ness.” Yoga is universal in the same sense that Hinduism is a universal path
to join with the divine.20
Identifying modern yoga with “classical” Hindu yoga sometimes functions
as an authenticating strategy for appealing to consumers in search of ancient
wisdom. An avowedly secular textbook, Yoga the College Way: A Textbook for
College Yoga (1996), explains the Sun Salutation by quoting an “ancient”
Hindu verse:

With praying hands I face the sun, feeling love and joy in my heart.
I stretch up my hand and let the sun fill me with warmth.
I bow before the sun’s radiance and place my face to the ground with
humble respect.
I lift my face to the sun and then remember that to achieve such heights
I must be as the dust of the earth.
I stretch up towards its light trying to reach the greatest heights and
again surrender.
I stand tall as I remember the true sun within me.
54 the healing gods

The poem’s speaker prays toward the sun, bows and surrenders before it, and
remembers that the “true sun” is within. Some modern yoga instructors similarly
explain the “downward-facing dog” asana as historically associated with mytho-
logical guardian animals or the “mother goddess,” the “cobra” pose as represent-
ing kundalini, and the “tree” pose as an opportunity to see oneself as a deeply
rooted tree receiving vital energy from the earth. Posing as a “corpse” at the end
of class, modern yogi aspirants may visualize themselves stepping outside their
physical bodies in anticipation of being liberated from the cycle of life and death.
The word namaste, typically said while gesturing with praying hands (anjalimu-
dra) to close class, is often translated as “I bow to the god within you.” A mudra
is a “seal,” a position of the hands or body, believed to direct spiritual energy.21
Even when distancing yoga from Hinduism or religion, advocates empha-
size that yoga offers more than exercise. Marge is a yoga instructor in a
Midwestern town who denies that yoga is “religion,” while insisting that “yoga
is not an exercise. You get exercise from it. But the true part . . . is the life force.”
Yoga is to Marge “sacred” and helps her “enjoy my own spirituality. . . . I feel at
one with the universe.” Alejandra, an intern in the same studio, distinguishes
yoga from religion “because to me, religion has a common belief system.” Yet
for Alejandra, yoga is about “loss of ego and self, then you’re yoking.” Another
intern, Brianna, attests that yoga is “definitely a spiritual practice.” When
Deborah Desmond, owner of Namaste Yoga & Tranquility Center in Brooklyn,
New York, says “yoga is not a religion,” she means that yoga is broader than
any one religious tradition: “it is a way of life.” Desmond’s yoga studio is not
specifically Hindu, but neither is it secular. She takes an “intuitive, shamanic
approach” to select among “Sacred Holistic Body Therapies,” including yoga,
Reiki, aromatherapy, herbalism, acupuncture, and Thai massage, in “chan-
neling divine life force (chi or ki) from the universe to the recipient.” While
rejecting the label religion in preference for terms such as spiritual, sacred, or
divine, such accounts set yoga apart from secular exercise.22
Although often seeking to distance yoga from religion, at times promoters
have reason to argue that yoga is religion. This was the case in 2009, when the
Missouri government imposed a 4-percent sales tax on yoga classes. Studio
owners protested that “yoga is a spiritual practice. It’s not a purchase,” and
it should therefore enjoy a religious exemption, an argument that had previ-
ously halted taxation efforts in Connecticut and Washington. Virginia yoga
instructors filed suit in 2009 to stop plans for state regulation of yoga studios,
alleging that government oversight violates First Amendment rights to free
exercise of religion.23
A number of Hindu spokespersons insist that yoga is not only spiritual and
religious; it is Hindu. Subhas Tiwari, a yoga instructor at the Hindu University
 Yoga 55

of America, claims that “the simple, immutable fact is that yoga originated from
the Vedic or Hindu culture. Its techniques were not adopted by Hinduism, but
originated from it.” Tiwari calls the invention of “Christian” yoga “religious
schizophrenia.” Yogi Baba Prem argues that “offering yoga classes allowed
the Christian to secretly practice Hinduism without having to renounce their
Christian tradition.” Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati concedes that yoga is only one
piece of Hinduism: “Yoga is in religion, but religion is not in Yoga,” making it
possible to practice yoga apart from its Hindu context. Bharati thus pleads with
Christians not to “distort and denigrate the true goals and nature of Yoga so that
it matches your religion.” Aseem Shukla charges that unscrupulous profiteers
intentionally obscured yoga’s Hindu origins: “Hinduism, as a faith tradition,
stands at this pass a victim of overt intellectual property theft, absence of trade-
mark protections and the facile complicity of generations of Hindu yogis, gurus,
swamis and others that offered up a religion’s spiritual wealth at the altar of crass
commercialism.” Shukla complains that “the most popular yoga publications are
also in on the act.” Such journals “abundantly refer to yoga as ‘ancient Indian,’
‘Eastern’ or ‘Sanskritic,’ but seem to assiduously avoid the term ‘Hindu’ out of
fear, we can only assume, that ascribing honestly the origins of their passion
might spell disaster for what has become a lucrative commercial enterprise.” In
the view of these Hindu leaders, yoga is not just exercise or commodity but is an
expression of Hinduism.24
Many Americans think of modern postural or hatha yoga as the most
physical—and secular—type of yoga. This raises the question of whether pos-
tural yoga can be practiced solely for its physical benefits or whether this type
of physical exercise leads into religious exercise. Theos Bernard, an American-
born yoga proponent who wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on yoga at Columbia
University in 1939—at a time when few Americans had heard of yoga—
advocated hatha yoga as the school best suited to Americans. Bernard rea-
soned that in a materialistic culture, people need the help of physical means
to arouse kundalini, “and if you transform your body, you can’t help but trans-
form your ‘vital forces.’” The German-born Swami Sivenanda Radha (born
Sylvia Hellman) specifies in her book, Hatha Yoga (1986; 2006), that “asanas
are a devotional practice . . . to bring the seeker into closer contact with the
Higher Self.” According to Radha, “as an asana is perfected through practice,
at a certain stage it becomes spiritual; . . . the practice of Hatha Yoga is not lim-
ited to the physical. It begins there because human awareness is, in the begin-
ning, physical. . . . Asanas are a discipline of the body, but they are not without
an effect on the mind.” If Bernard and Radha are correct that the physical
practice of asanas induces spiritual experiences, it may be difficult to practice
postural yoga without practicing religion.25
56 the healing gods

Although most Americans know little about South Asian religious culture,
many consumers associate yoga not only with exercise but also with a vaguely
“Eastern” or “New Age” spiritual mystique, a construct that inspires both fear
and curiosity. A testimonial featured on an Indiana University Recreational
Sports brochure highlights this perception: “Before my first Recreational
Sports yoga class I was curious about yoga but also a little bit skeptical about
the value of chanting ‘Om’ repeatedly while listening to a bunch of new age
music.” This individual’s resistance melted when he found that the classes
provided “first rate workouts.” Journalist Stefanie Syman proposes that “even
if you’re just using practicing yoga as a form of exercise, in the back of your
mind you know that if you perhaps pursued it further there’s this whole other
dimension, this rich field of possibility of transforming your body and having
spiritual realization [and this] is what really makes it so appealing.” Yoga offers
not just exercise but a “sense of working toward something more meaning-
ful than mere physical beauty and something more sensual than religion as
they had previously understood it.” This promise of something “more” than
exercise draws Americans to yoga from diverse cultural and religious back-
grounds, including theologically conservative Christianity.26

Is Christian Yoga an Oxymoron?

American Christians first became aware of yoga through reports of missionar-
ies dispatched to India in the nineteenth century. Rather than adopting yoga,
these missionaries regarded it as evidence of “heathenism,” “licentiousness,”
and “superstition.” Relatively few Christians practiced yoga before the early
twenty-first century. A 1998 survey found that most American yoga practi-
tioners were urban, college-educated, baby-boomer, non-Christian women.
Ten years later, Christians had joined the ranks of self-described American
yogis. A survey conducted by Christianity Today in 2007 found that 2 percent
of those “more active” in church used yoga to “grow spiritually,” compared
with 4 percent of those “less active” in church. By comparison, 15 percent of all
Christians used other forms of exercise for spiritual growth.27
As Christians took up yoga in community classes or created “Christian” yoga
programs, Christian criticisms of yoga also proliferated. Of all the CAM forms
popular in America today, yoga has attracted the most negative, and the most pos-
itive, attention in the evangelical media. Few Christian critics know much about
yoga or South Asian religions, but many feel uneasy about yoga’s spiritual rami-
fications. An Assemblies of God position paper worries vaguely about “varying
ties to eastern religions” and that certain instructors might inject “philosophies
and ideas foreign to the Bible and Christian faith.” Christianity Today writer Holly
 Yoga 57

Robaina stopped practicing yoga soon after converting to Christianity because,

she says, “I sensed something spiritual about yoga that made me uneasy. (I later
discovered yoga’s Hindu origins and understood why I’d felt uneasy.)” Sarah
Pavlik, a writer for Today’s Christian Woman, became alarmed when the same
friend who had invited her to her first yoga class converted to Buddhism three
months after beginning hatha yoga. Sister Marta Alves recounts that she has “a
Catholic friend, Ana, who years ago started practicing yoga, and today believes
that God is energy, that we are all part of God, that there is no devil, that there is
no hell, and that there is reincarnation.” Such critics imprecisely associate yoga
with non-Christian spirituality or cite personal experiences of yoga seemingly
leading friends away from orthodox Christian beliefs.28
A central question addressed by evangelical evaluators is whether yoga can
be severed from non-Christian religions by practicing it “just” as exercise, or by
relabeling it as “Christian” yoga. John MacArthur, pastor of a California mega-
church, Christian college president, and host of a nationally syndicated radio
show, offered his perspective for a CNN interview in 2007. MacArthur loosely
denigrated yoga as an “expression from a false religion, from pantheism.” Yet
MacArthur allowed that a “strong Christian” could “probably” engage in yoga
that was “just purely exercise” without jeopardizing faith. MacArthur did not
elaborate on how yoga could be practiced as just purely exercise for either CNN
or the evangelical detractors who pressed him on this point during an ensuing
Christian media controversy. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, denies the possibility of practicing yoga just as exercise,
because “yoga cannot be neatly separated into physical and spiritual dimensions.
The physical is the spiritual in yoga, and the exercises and disciplines of yoga are
meant to connect with the divine.” Evangelical critic Marcia Montenegro argues
that “‘Christian Yoga’ is an oxymoron. . . . Just as there is no Christian Ouija board
and no Christian astrology, so there is no Christian Yoga that is either truly Yoga
or truly Christian.” Another evangelical censor, Dave Hunt, claims that “one
cannot just adopt a religious practice and call it Christianity.” According to such
critics, insisting that yoga is just exercise or calling it Christian does not negate
the religious purpose of yoga: yoking with the divine.29

What About Pilates?

An offshoot of the same physical-culture movement that birthed modern pos-
tural yoga, Pilates was developed in the 1920s and popularized in the 1990s.
Joseph Pilates (1883–1967), the movement’s founder, adapted philosophies
and forms from yoga, Zen Buddhist meditation, classical dance, and martial
arts. Pilates is sometimes called “yoga in motion,” and many studios offer
58 the healing gods

combination yoga-and-Pilates classes. Marguerite Ogle, who teaches yoga and

Pilates, observes that “when people think of yoga and Pilates, they sometimes
think that yoga is ‘spiritual’ and Pilates is not.” Pilates classes omit chanting a
mantra to meditate, postures differ from yoga asanas, and there is more empha-
sis on strengthening core muscles using physical apparatus. Nevertheless, Ogle
argues, Pilates, too, is a “body/mind/spirit” discipline “infused” with yoga and
meditation philosophies. Rael Isacowitz, one of the most influential modern
Pilates instructors, affirms that the “flow of energy and life force” and “mind-
body relationship lies at the heart of Pilates.” Isacowitz compares the Pilates
view of mindfulness, centering, and energy with that of “ki in aikido, chi in tai
chi, tan tien in chi gong, and cakra in yoga.” As with yoga, proponents envision
Pilates as more than exercise.30
Christians who reject yoga as intrinsically religious accept Pilates as secu-
lar exercise. Because Christians know even less about Pilates than they do
about yoga, and because Pilates classes use less spiritual language, Christians
assume that Pilates is devoid of religious content. One vocal evangelical critic
of the “New Age,” Douglas Groothuis, suggests that Christians might try
Pilates as a secular alternative to yoga, since “any health benefit you could
derive from yoga you can get from outside of yoga such as through Pilates
or physical therapy.” (Groothuis appears to be unaware of physical-therapy
instructors who view the profession as having a “philosophical and practical
affiliation with CAM.”) The evangelical Web site Gotquestions.org denounces
yoga as “pantheism” and “self-worship” but vindicates Pilates as a “physical
fitness system” and finds “nothing to alarm Christians or cause us to fear
or mistrust Pilates.” Even if some Pilates instructors “incorporate aspects of
Eastern religions or New Age thought,” the site attributes this propensity not
to Pilates per se but to the “overly-zealous instructor who has himself or her-
self been indoctrinated into New Age philosophy and has brought it into all
aspects of life, including exercise.” Given this general impression of Pilates
as secular exercise, Christians who want to practice Pilates do so in general-
interest classes rather than by developing “Christian” Pilates.31

Baptizing Yoga
Explicitly Christian exercise programs are nothing new. In the 1970s and
1980s, various Christian aerobics programs found a market. As yoga replaced
aerobics as an American fitness craze, Christians got on the bandwagon.
Christians sometimes get defensive when challenged by other Christians
about their yoga practice, because yoga seems to offer more than either secular
exercise or church attendance. When Southern Baptist Theological president
 Yoga 59

Albert Mohler commented in an Associated Press interview in 2010 that he

was “surprised” by Christians’ commitment to yoga, Yahoo posted the story on
its front page, and several hundred angry Christian readers e-mailed Mohler
to protest. One reader volunteered, “I get much more out of yoga and medita-
tion than I ever get out of a sermon in church.” Another Christian yogi rea-
soned, “the churches are emptying; the yoga centers are full.” Similarly, an
Amazon.com customer disclosed her reason for purchasing a Christoga: Faith
in Fitness DVD: “I bought this DVD because I was worried that my prayer life
was lacking. This is an excellent way to incorporate Christ’s Word into your
soul.” Another Amazon.com reviewer admitted that she had formerly used a
non-Christian yoga DVD because she “loved doing Yoga, but hated that I was
bringing Eastern religions into my home, and letting it infiltrate into my chil-
dren.” Christoga allowed her to do yoga without feeling guilty, becoming “the
most rewarding time of my day. It’s been like going to church, and the gym all
in one!” Other Christoga reviewers who saw no incongruity in combining yoga
with Christianity did debate whether it was immodest for a Christian yogini to
reveal her belly button.32
The label “Christian yoga” functions, first, to rationalize participation in a
practice learned from non-Christian religions and, second, to market a distinc-
tive product. Promoters of Christian yoga use one of three major approaches to
adapt practices from other religions to revitalize Christianity. The first, “liberal,”
approach combines other religious traditions with Christianity. This approach
is exemplified by Russill Paul, a Roman Catholic of Indian descent, born in
South India and trained as a Benedictine monk in a “Hindu-Christian monas-
tery” that “fully expressed itself in the culture of Yoga.” Paul left the monastery
before taking final vows, married, moved to the United States, and cultivated an
international reputation as a yoga instructor and musician. In his book, Jesus in
the Lotus (2009), Paul advocates “interspirituality,” or “simultaneous practice
of more than one spiritual tradition,” but condemns “syncretism,” or blurring
differences. In Paul’s view, yoga offers Christians means of “undoing the sepa-
ration” between humans and God presupposed by Christianity. Yoga reveals
to Christians their “true Self,” which is “one and the same” as “union with
the Divine,” since “the Christ nature within us, which Jesus identified himself
with, is synonymous with Atman.” This interpretation holds that Hindu and
Christian concepts can be equated or fill out each other’s meanings.33
The second, “liturgical,” approach elides differences between other
religions and Christianity through ritual incorporation. Father Thomas
Ryan is director of the Paulist North American Office for Ecumenical and
Interfaith Relations and a certified Kripalu yoga instructor. He is the author
of Prayer of Heart and Body: Meditation and Yoga as Christian Spiritual
60 the healing gods

Practice, published by the Catholic Paulist Press in 1994, and of the DVD
Yoga Prayer: An Embodied Christian Spiritual Practice, produced by Paulist
Productions in 2005. Catholicism has long incorporated bodily practices as
acts of prayer or worship: genuflecting or kneeling, making the sign of the
cross, or fingering rosary beads. Ryan treats “yoga prayers” sacramentally,
as rituals that can be isolated from and transferred between religious tra-
ditions to become for the Christian visible channels of divine grace. Ryan
notes that “for centuries, yoga has been used to prepare the body for medi-
tation and communion with the divine.” He remains silent about whether
“the divine” communed with in yoga is comparable to the Christian God.
Yoga appeals to Ryan because of its positive valuation of the body—in con-
trast with Catholicism’s historic emphasis on ascetic disciplines and physi-
cal suffering as routes to spiritual purity. (Ryan’s perception is key, since
yoga can be interpreted as an ascetic, body-subduing discipline.) Ryan
invites fellow Catholics to “imagine what it would feel like to pray with
your whole body—how powerful your prayer could become.” Rather than
preparing for the afterlife, the focus of many Catholic practices, Ryan’s yoga
promises that “salvation doesn’t mean getting out of this skin, but rather
being transfigured and glorified in it.” Participants in Ryan’s New York City
yoga classes, held at St. Paul the Apostle Parish, express appreciation of
this unique form of “communal prayer,” whereas “with most exercise you
don’t get this spiritual component.” Rituals from Hinduism help Christians
“renew and invigorate” their “connection to God,” in a way not offered by
the Church’s sacraments.34
The third, “evangelical,” approach replaces non-Christian with Christian
language. Evangelical appropriation can be divided into three subcategories,
each of which offers progressively greater levels of linguistic separation from
South Asian religious yoga. First, programs add Christian terms to yoga in the
title, such as “Holy Yoga,” “Christoga,” “Christ Centered Yoga,” and “Yahweh
Yoga.” Nancy Roth is an Episcopal priest and author of An Invitation to Christian
Yoga (2001), published by the Society of Saint John the Evangelist, a monastic
order of the Episcopal church. What marks Roth’s yoga as “Christian body
prayer” is relabeling poses and mantras. The “Salute to the Sun” becomes the
“Salute to the Son.” Roth affirms that the series was “traditionally performed
by devout Hindus at dawn as a thanksgiving for a new day. As such, it is cer-
tainly within the realm of Christian prayer!” The Son, not the Sun, becomes
the object of thanksgiving through verbal substitution, although the gesture of
prostration remains unchanged. Roth advises reciting the Lord’s Prayer while
doing the salutation. She appends verses from the Psalms to other asanas
and proposes the “movement mantra” of “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier.” Roth
 Yoga 61

discovered yoga in non-Christian classes that “affected both my body and my

spirit.” Roth was not bothered that she “chanted ‘Om’ or that the exercises
had Hindu names,” because the “relaxation and visualization became for me
a doorway into prayer.” She experienced the practices as Christian prayer by
relabeling them as such.35
A second evangelical subcategory removes the term yoga from the title.
Some evangelicals object to the word yoga because it constantly reminds them
of the goal of yoking with the divine. This subcategory includes variants such
as “Outstretched in Praise,” “Outstretched in Worship,” and “Breath & Body.”
Susan Bordenkircher, who maintains a certification in mind/body fitness
with the Deep South Alliance of Fitness Professionals, started “Outstretched
in Worship” as an “outreach ministry” of a United Methodist church in
Alabama and produced a related video series in 2002. The United Methodist
Conference recognized Bordenkircher with an “evangelism” award in 2003.
She says she learned yoga in classes that she felt were negatively affecting her
“psychologically and spiritually,” leading her to create a Christian alternative.
Once Bordenkircher attracted evangelicals with the “Outstretched” label, she
reintroduced the term yoga, publishing Yoga for Christians in 2006, with a
major Christian press, Thomas Nelson. She redefined the goal of yoking as
the “bringing together of one’s mind and body” to find that “God’s presence is
in your breath.” Pranayama became “‘breathing in’ the Holy Spirit” to make
one “physically healthy and spiritually healthy.” Yoga is for Bordenkircher
more than exercise; it is “different—and better—than other forms of exercise
because of the focus on the breath.” Picking up on an evangelical idiom that
Christians should “challenge” one another to get out of their “comfort zones”
and pursue a radical life of faith, Bordenkircher turns the marginal status of
yoga in Christian culture into an endorsement: “So let God’s word and this
practice together challenge you to get out of your comfort zone in worship of
our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Yoga becomes Christian when it is dedi-
cated to Jesus.36
Such linguistic moves do not assuage all evangelicals. In 2007, the
Southern Baptist Convention removed Bordenkircher’s books, along with
Boon’s Holy Yoga, from its Lifeway online bookstore. Lifeway’s fitness expert,
Branda Polk, also came under fire. In response, Polk renamed the series of
yoga classes she taught at Germantown Baptist Church in Tennessee from
“50+ Yoga,” “Beginner Yoga,” “Mommy & Me Yoga,” “Yoga Flow,” “Evening
Yoga,” “Yoga/Pilates Fusion,” and “Yoga Basics” to a newly titled sequence of
“Breath & Body” and Pilates classes that offer a “Christian alternative to yoga.”
The Web site describes Pilates as “similar to yoga,” but the term does not raise
danders the way yoga does.37
62 the healing gods

The first two subcategories of evangelical adaptation result in programs

that retain the same names for asanas and the same sequences found in most
postural yoga classes, rededicated to Christian worship. Some programs intro-
duce new poses; “Shalom Yoga” models postures on Hebrew alphabet let-
ters. Other programs give popular poses Christian labels, such as Christoga’s
“Prodigal Son, “Noah’s Arch,” “Lazarus,” and “Holy Rollers.” Programs may
add linguistic gestures to reframe overt references to non-Christian worship.
The Sun Salutation is typically renamed the Son Salutation. Evangelicals
translate namaste as “The image of God in me honors the image of God in
you” and relabel prana as “Holy Spirit”: “Breathe in. Breathe out. Holy Spirit
in. Anything that’s not from God out.” Programs Christianize meditation by
suggesting Bible verses for each asana or replacing the mantra “Om” with
“Shalom” or the “Jesus prayer”: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have
mercy on me.” Logos append Christian imagery to symbols associated with
Hinduism. Marylyn Mandeville teaches yoga at Parkwood Southern Baptist
Church in Virginia while wearing a T-shirt picturing a gold cross resting on
the Om symbol. Becky Martin’s trademarked “Christ Centered Yoga” uses as
its logo a drawing of a woman sitting in a lotus pose with a cross superim-
posed on her chest. Such programs insist on their Christian identity while
marketing a product clearly identifiable as yoga.38
The third evangelical subcategory jettisons all yoga language while prom-
ising the same benefits—physical and spiritual—as yoga. These programs
are not “just exercise”—which most Christians agree is religiously neutral
and physically beneficial—but yoga-inspired strategies for using the body to
express prayer and worship. Laura Monica, a self-described “born-again com-
mitted Christian,” founded “WholyFit,” a “Christian Mind-Body Fitness cer-
tification organization” that has certified more than one hundred instructors
in the United States and Canada. Monica has more than twenty-five years of
experience as a certified health and fitness instructor through the American
College of Sports Medicine. Monica renounced “yoga” after taking a Yoga
Alliance certification class that required studying Hindu texts and mantras
and reciting a Sanskrit chant to “give your soul completely to Shiva.” Despite
rejecting yoga, including “Christian yoga,” along with t’ai chi, Monica still
identifies herself as a “Martial Arts Expert” and boasts a black belt in Chun
Kuk Do karate. WholyFit’s cofounder, Leah Nelson, is a “Certified Pilates
Instructor.” According to Molly, who teaches WholyFit classes at a Midwestern
evangelical church, the program “provides all the proven health and fitness
benefits of Yoga, Pilates, & Tai Chi, presented from a biblically Christian
worldview.” In Molly’s estimate, “WholyFit is NOT yoga, because we do not
incorporate the yoga philosophy plus we employ different exercise techniques
 Yoga 63

and goals than yoga teaches” (see figure 2.1). The goal of WholyFit is to “wor-
ship our Creator, Jesus Christ, with our bodies. We do this through movement,
infusing Scripture, healing worship music, meditation on His promises, and
prayer as we exercise. Our mind/body focus is centered on Christ, not on other
gods, other persons, other traditions” (see figure 2.2). Molly also emphasizes
WholyFit’s medically certified health and safety benefits: “We follow American
College of Sports Medicine safety guidelines that are standard safety rules
for the fitness industry. We utilize eccentric, static, isometric, contractions.
WholyFit also follows guidelines of the National Academy of Sports Medicine
for progression, stability first, then strength, then begin training for flexibil-
ity.” WholyFit is “Better than Yoga!”—to quote its official Web site—for both
spiritual and physical reasons.39
More popular among evangelicals than WholyFit is the “PraiseMoves” pro-
gram. Laurette Willis is a former yoga instructor turned self-styled “Christian
fitness expert,” who founded PraiseMoves as a “Christian alternative to yoga,”
including “Christian yoga,” which she considers implicated in Hindu and
“New Age” spirituality. Willis recalls that as a seven-year-old, she began doing
yoga with her mother while watching a television exercise program; this was

figure 2.1 A WholyFit Certified Instructor demonstrating the “Helmet of

Salvation” pose, which looks similar to yoga’s “upward-facing dog,” part of the Sun
Salutation, 2011. (Courtesy Erin Garvey)
64 the healing gods

figure 2.2 A WholyFit Certified Instructor performing the “Overcomer” pose

in a church building with a Christian cross in the background, 2011. (Courtesy
Erin Garvey)

“the door that led us into the New Age Movement,” which Willis remained
involved in for the next twenty-two years before becoming a Christian.
Wanting to offer Christians an alternative to yoga—and sensing an untapped
market—Willis self-published a PraiseMoves book and video in 2003, which
quickly captured national media attention. Willis followed up with addi-
tional instructional materials, teacher-certification programs, conferences,
PraiseMoves and PraiseMoves Kids TV shows, and a more secular-sounding
PowerMoves Kids curriculum for pre-K through high-school classrooms. The
PraiseMoves program avoids emulating obviously religious gestures such as
“praying hands” and replaces many asanas with newly developed poses linked
to Bible verses or concepts. The program includes “The Eagle,” “The Angel,”
“The Rainbow,” and “The Altar,” with a Bible verse for each. Willis admits
that some PraiseMoves postures “resemble yoga postures,” a similarity she
justifies because “there’s not an infinite number of ways the human body can
move.” But she attests that PraiseMoves is a “redemptive work,” comparable
to redeeming notes on the musical scale for Christian worship although the
same notes have been used for ungodly music. Even evangelical critics who
object most strenuously to Christian yoga place Willis’s program in a class
by itself as having captured yoga’s physical and spiritual benefits without
 Yoga 65

succumbing to Hindu or New Age spirituality. Willis’s popularity among evan-

gelicals also seems to be helped by her distinctively modest dress, long sleeves
and leggings, no belly button showing here.40
All three evangelical subcategories of Christian yoga derive from the
Protestant Reformation emphasis on faith versus works and Word versus tra-
dition. The crucial assumption is that “intent,” or belief, determines whether
a practice is Christian. If someone engages in a practice intending it to be
Christian, then it is by definition Christian. The evangelical emphasis on per-
sonal testimony makes it hard to refute the experiential claim that practices
bring one into closer relationship with Christ. Agnieszka Tennant, a writer for
Christianity Today, accuses Willis of “fear mongering (or is it fear marketing?)
among evangelicals” and defends her own yoga practices on the evangelical
grounds that they “draw me closer to Christ. They are my bodily-kinetic prayer.”
Stephanie Dillon, owner of PM Yoga studio in Louisville, Kentucky, implies
that yoga’s critics are unduly “religious” in a legalistic sense. In Dillon’s view,
yoga “enhances a person’s spirituality. . . . I don’t like to look at religion from a
law standpoint but a relationship standpoint, a relationship with Jesus Christ.”
Brooke Boon summarily dismisses the charge of one critic that Holy Yoga is
“Satanic” by asserting that “my own experience has taught me that this view is
not the truth.” In a chapter entitled “Answering the Objections,” Boon closes
off further discussion by declaring her evangelical identity: “remember that in
Holy Yoga, the answer to practically every question is two words: Jesus Christ.”
Claiming devotion to Jesus is the ultimate evangelical argument stopper.41

Conclusion
Yoga’s mainstreaming is a success story of strategic marketing through
selective self-presentation by promoters who recognized what would sell to
American consumers. Advocates distanced yoga from Hindu religious asso-
ciations by relabeling yoga as scientific techniques, nonsectarian spiritual-
ity, exercise, commodity, and Christian worship. Consumers embraced yoga
because they wanted to be physically fit and relieve stress and also because
they wanted more than secular exercise; they wanted bodily experience of the
sacred. Christianized variants minimized perceived tensions between yoga
and Christianity, while adding to Christian experience an element that seemed
lacking in churches.
The rise of yoga in America, and particularly the invention of Christian
yoga, is a fascinating story of cultural reinterpretation made possible by
incommensurable understandings of “religion.” Most Americans do not
identify yoga as religious because they restrict their definition of religion to
66 the healing gods

statements of doctrine rather than recognizing that bodily practices can be reli-
gious. Because the physical and spiritual aspects of yoga intertwine, failure to
acknowledge yoga’s religious purposes does not automatically transform yoga
into secular exercise. Neither does relabeling yoga as Christian necessarily
purge other religious meanings. Packaging yoga for secular or Christian con-
sumption may result in semantic more than substantive changes. Later chap-
ters show how doing yoga “just as exercise” in secular settings or Christian
churches can provide a stepping stone to other forms of yoga and monistic
worldviews. This raises the larger question, explored in chapter 3, of what hap-
pens when evangelicals appropriate CAM for Christianity.
 3
Is CAM Christian?

complementary and alternative medicine has gained a clientele of

theologically conservative Christians. This is a recent development that can be
traced to the late twentieth century. Before World War II, few holistic healers
made a bid for acceptance by Christians, and few Christians were convinced
that CAM is compatible with Christianity. Today Christians actively debate
CAM’s legitimacy. Some Christians approve CAM as nonreligious wellness
activities or aids to Christian devotion, while others condemn CAM as thinly
veiled religion antithetical to Christianity.
This chapter argues that Christians who oppose CAM are basically correct
that prevalent CAM worldviews diverge from how many theologically conser-
vative Christians have historically defined their tradition. Nevertheless, both
sides in this intramural debate base conclusions on scant information, con-
fuse the issues, and make unsubstantiated claims. This points to a fundamen-
tal limitation in how evangelicals navigate the “religious” and the “secular,” a
constraint that may imperceptibly lead evangelicals toward religious practices
they might otherwise seek to avoid.

Boundary Setting and Appropriation

Since the first century, Christianity has contained within it twin impulses:
appropriation of “non-Christian” means for “Christian” purposes and bound-
ary setting or proscription of particular beliefs and actions that seem inher-
ently corrupting. Which specific ideas and activities fall in or out of favor at a
given time or place depends on cultural and historical factors in addition to
religious factors. During the Reformation, Protestants rejected the authority of
the Catholic hierarchy to regulate doctrine and practice, instead affirming the
“priesthood of all believers,” that every Christian has a right and responsibility
68 the healing gods

to use the Bible to navigate questionable matters. This led to a proliferation

of “Christian” viewpoints on many issues, including healing. American evan-
gelicals do not all agree on where to draw the boundary between legitimate
and illegitimate healing practices, but they share a common understanding of
how legitimacy should be determined. Evangelicals classify disputed practices
either as religiously neutral “science” or as “New Age” religion.
Since the Enlightenment, many Christians have reasoned that empirical
demonstration of a method’s effectiveness constitutes evidence from the “book
of nature” (a complement to the “book of revelation,” the Bible) of its confor-
mity to natural laws God used in creation. Efficacy implies that God created
resources for human benefit. As antagonism between science and religion
grew by the late nineteenth century, Americans tended to categorize things as
either scientific or religious but not both. Because Christians wanted to use
scientific technology, they distinguished between religiously neutral technol-
ogy and the ideology of scientific naturalism that birthed the technology. They
then categorized effective methods as legitimate scientific procedures rather
than atheistic materialism or illicit spirituality. Evangelicals followed a circular
train of assumptions: science provides empirical evidence of God’s created
order; any effective method is scientific; if scientific, then religiously neutral;
if religiously neutral, then available for legitimate use.1
By the 1970s, the term New Age functioned in popular evangelical culture
as code for anything that spokespersons evaluated as illegitimate for Christians.
The New Age label groups together pejoratively diverse beliefs and practices per-
ceived as expressing “heretical,” “Eastern,” “pantheistic,” “panentheistic,” and
“unscientific” ideas of tapping into spiritual energy in ways unauthorized by the
Bible. The New Age moniker works in tandem with the demonization of “Old
Age,” “Eastern,” religious traditions and the presumably “occult” tendencies of
peoples in or from the developing world. American Protestants agonized over the
new immigration of the post-1965 era, fearing theological and cultural contami-
nation. Evangelical author Frank Peretti’s best-selling novel, This Present Darkness
(1986), put many readers on their guard to block a “hideous New Age plot to
subjugate . . . the entire human race.” Most European-American Protestants
responded to their growing anxiety over New Age infiltration by keeping their
distance from unfamiliar cultural groups, rather than by systematic investigation.
This is because evangelicals worry that occult knowledge corrupts. As a result,
few evangelicals know much about the “Eastern” or “New Age” traditions they
condemn. These terms denote vaguely illicit, exotic, superstitious religions that
it seems spiritually dangerous to learn too much about. For instance, Dr. Taylor,
a theology professor at an evangelical college, approves of acupuncture as a medi-
cal technique but expresses concern that “certain forms of yoga and meditation
 Is CAM Christian? 69

might be incompatible with faithful Christian spirituality.” He says, “I do think it

would be possible to remove aspects of the practices that are incompatible with
Christian commitments.” But Taylor does not seem to know enough about any
of these practices to specify which aspects should be removed.2
Lack of in-depth knowledge does not stop evangelicals from issuing judg-
ments about which practices seem New Age. In the absence of a central govern-
ing hierarchy, such as the Catholic church, self-appointed evangelical watchdogs,
typically labeled “discernment ministries,” see themselves as exposing heretical
threats to Christianity. Different discernment ministries reach opposite conclu-
sions about the legitimacy of particular practices, and even the same ministries
reach self-contradictory verdicts. Discernment assessments of t’ai chi provide an
example. The Christian Research Institute (CRI) is one of the most theologically
conservative and outspoken of all evangelical discernment ministries. The CRI
denounces the “Eastern religions from which [t’ai chi] emerged” and “all chi-
related activities that supposedly enhance one’s ability to harness, circulate, and
unleash this mystical power,” even if superficially renamed “Holy Spirit.” (The
CRI inaccurately conflates chi/ji [极], translated as “ultimate,” with ch’i/qi [气],
translated as “vital breath”). Yet the CRI deduces that the “physical aspect of the
art may be isolated from the philosophical/religious context,” making it legitimate
for Christians to practice t’ai chi. Gotquestions.org (“the Bible has the answers,
we’ll find them for you!”) is the discernment ministry of choice for Focus on
the Family, a high-profile evangelical opinion shaper. Like CRI, Gotquestions.
org confuses chi with ch’i but reaches the contrary conclusion that t’ai chi is
illegitimate for Christians. It is “based on a Taoist spiritual view of the body and
the chi,” whereas the Bible teaches that “Jesus Christ created and holds the world
together, not the Tao or an invisible force called chi.” In examining acupuncture,
by contrast, Gotquestions.org decides that “while a Christian should wholeheart-
edly reject the Taoist yin-yang philosophy, there is nothing inherently unbibli-
cal about the acupuncture procedure itself.” This is because “many people have
found acupuncture to provide relief from pain,” and “the medical community
is increasingly recognizing that in some instances, there are verifiable medical
benefits.” If Gotquestions.org becomes aware that studies also report medical
benefits from t’ai chi (as discussed in chapter 5 below), it seems possible that
the group might likewise accept t’ai chi as medical science rather than Taoist
religion.3

Roots and Fruits

Evangelical Christians typically determine the legitimacy of a practice by
using the paired litmus tests of evaluating “roots” and “fruits.” In so doing,
70 the healing gods

they allude to Jesus’s teachings that “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a
man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit,” and “every good
tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. . . . Thus, by their fruit
you will recognize them.” In appraising practices, evangelicals first ask: Are
the roots good? Historical origins seem important on the premise that there
is an organic connection between progenitors and progeny. Evangelicals ask
of CAM whether roots are religious. If roots are not religious, then evalua-
tors class CAM techniques as religiously neutral resources provided by God.
If roots are religious, then, by evangelical reasoning, to be legitimate, roots
should ideally be Christian, pointing back to Jesus Christ. If practices emerged
from non-Christian religions, evangelicals have more trouble justifying appro-
priation yet may feel able to do so if roots appear to be complementary, or at
least compatible, with Christianity. Evangelicals also ask: Are the fruits good?
Evangelical Christians want to know whether CAM works to achieve this-
worldly benefits such as health and other-worldly benefits, primarily salvation,
by promoting evangelism and missions toward non-Christians and spiritual
growth of Christians.4

Bad Roots
There is a large body of evangelical literature decrying the roots of CAM in New
Age or Eastern religions. Neil Anderson and osteopathic physician Michael
Jacobson’s The Biblical Guide to Alternative Medicine (2003) generalizes that
“practically all energy-based touch therapies trace their philosophical roots
and practices back to ancient India” and the concept of prana. Assessments
of spiritual roots tend to blur “Eastern” and “Western” metaphysical traditions
in a manner that indicates a superficial understanding of both. For instance,
evangelicals express scant familiarity with the history of homeopathy’s devel-
opment in Germany. Critics instead disparage homeopathy as “the fruit of a
philosophy and religion that are at the same time Hinduistic, pantheistic, and
esoteric,” or note that “talk of the vital force” sounds “very similar to the teach-
ings which have been brought to the West by Gurus and Yogis.” Although it
is true that homeopathy’s German founder, Samuel Hahnemann, embraced
religious ideas from Asia, evangelicals seem less interested in the Western
metaphysical tradition from which homeopathy more directly emerged.
Evangelicals seem equally unconcerned with differentiating among diverse
forms of practice, such as meditation. Equating meditation with “mindless-
ness,” The Biblical Guide cautions that “God never bypasses our minds. . . . This
is one way to detect a counterfeit spirit. If the mind is being bypassed, it is
a . . . cheap counterfeit for the peace and joy that only comes by the indwelling
 Is CAM Christian? 71

presence of God’s Spirit.” Paradoxically, this line of reasoning implies the

legitimacy of practices such as Buddhist mindfulness meditation, which
emphasizes mental concentration.5
Bad roots arguments flow along two major currents, reflecting a split in
modern Christianity between pentecostal and cessationist camps. Warnings
issued by one stream may be rejected by the other as unduly alarmist. On the
one hand, many cessationists consider pentecostal talk of demonic oppression
superstitious. On the other hand, pentecostals are offended when the same
discernment ministries that denounce CAM also charge that supposed “gifts
of the Holy Spirit,” such as divine healing, are “occult.” A 2007 “DiscernIt”
blog classes together the “healing waves” of “Network Chiropractic,” “yogic
kundalini,” the Charismatic “Pensacola/Toronto outbreaks,” and high-profile
pentecostals Rodney Howard-Brown and Benny Hinn. The blogger concludes:
“this power is demonic because it is metaphysical in nature, so it is unbiblical
for the Christian to participate.” In reaction to such generalizations, pentecos-
tals may dismiss all discernment warnings, including those against CAM.6
Pentecostals assume that two kinds of spiritual power act in the physical
world. Spiritual power is personal and value-laden; it is either good (reflecting
activity of God and angels) or evil (expressing work of Satan and demons), so
it cannot be impersonal or morally neutral. Some pentecostals prefer CAM’s
spiritual premises to biomedical materialism. Other pentecostals worry that
wielding spiritual energy is unbiblical. As nursing professor Arlene Miller
reasons, if “the Spirit is seen as a personal member of the Godhead, the very
idea of directing and modulating [energy] from within oneself into another
person approaches blasphemy. . . . The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal energy
to be directed and modulated by us!” Although CAM practices, such as lay-
ing on of hands, may superficially resemble Christian practices, they are
occult “counterfeits” for praying for God to heal through the power of his
Holy Spirit. Sharon Fish Mooney, a Christian with a Ph.D. in nursing, identi-
fies Therapeutic Touch as a “counterfeit of Satan” that is “clearly associated”
with divination, which is “explicitly forbidden in Scripture.” Christians can-
not practice Therapeutic Touch—a purportedly nonreligious form of laying
on of hands to “touch” and redirect energy fields—and “divorce themselves
from its occult associations” because “it is rooted and grounded in psychic soil
and it bears related fruit.” Pentecostals allow that CAM may produce healing.
The Nurses Christian Fellowship, affiliated with the national student ministry
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, proposes that Therapeutic Touch involves
the “manipulation of spirits. Evil spirits, or demons, are beings whose inten-
tion is to deceive us concerning the truths of God and they control us, ulti-
mately destroying us.” By this logic, because Satan is the source of energy
72 the healing gods

healing, and Satan’s goal is to destroy rather than heal, short-term healing is
purchased at the price of ultimate destruction.7
Pentecostal critics warn that CAM may cause demonic oppression. An
evangelical guidebook, Healing at Any Price? The Hidden Dangers of Alternative
Medicine (1988), written by Christian psychiatrist Samuel Pfeifer, associ-
ates dowsing with “sins of sorcery” and warns that the “spiritual passivity”
involved “carries with it the risk that powers beyond a person’s control may
take over the mind.” The Swiss physician H. J. Bopp’s Homeopathy Examined
(1985) cautions that “homeopathy is dangerous” because it uses “substances
made dynamic, that is to say, charged with occult forces . . . transmitted to
the individual, bringing him consciously and unconsciously under demonic
influence.” Brenda Skyrme’s Martial Arts & Yoga: A Christian Viewpoint
(1995) commences with an anecdote of a young man named Simon who
became “deeply involved” with judo, karate, jujitsu, aikido, and kendo before
becoming a Christian. After conversion, Simon stopped practicing martial
arts, but he continued to struggle with an aggressive personality and other
problems that were only resolved after receiving prayer for deliverance from
evil spirits.8
Pentecostals such as Skyrme worry that even Christians can be oppressed
by evil spirits and require deliverance ministry. In Simon’s case, this ministry
involved renouncing “Eastern philosophy and religions,” including Hinduism,
Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, and Taoism, and “cutting off and
releasing” Simon from the “totally demonic” ki power and the yin and yang
symbols and all they represent. Simon confessed as sin injuries done to oth-
ers, addressing instructors as “Sensei” or master, and bowing toward Senseis
and dojo shrines (see figure 3.1). Christians ministering to Simon prayed for
release from mantras used in meditation; the power of every position, breath-
ing exercise, and belt award; spirits of destruction, self-destruction, hatred,
anger, violence, suicide, death, and murder; the spirit of Nippon over Japanese
martial arts; and Mars, the Roman god of war. Prayer ministers commanded
every unclean thing to come out in Jesus’s name and prayed for healing of
Simon’s body, mind, and spirit. Skyrme warns, moreover, that the “dangers” of
martial arts and yoga are greater for those who are already Christians, because
this brings opposing spiritual powers into open conflict. Christians undertake
martial arts naively, because “the full knowledge of all that group represents is
only known as one advances through the levels and grades. It is only then that
an awareness of the full details become gradually clearer, and a deeper under-
standing is gained. By that time it is more difficult to extricate oneself from
further involvement.” And it is not enough simply to stop practicing, because
involvement has already opened the door to evil spiritual forces.9
 Is CAM Christian? 73

figure 3.1 Tae kwon do students bow to their instructor in a martial arts studio.
(Courtesy Erin Garvey)

For certain pentecostals, CAM seems dangerous because it invokes spiri-

tual power. Cessationists, by contrast, influenced by the antisuperstition legacy
of the Reformation, deny that there is spiritual power present to tap into even
if people worship other gods or practice divination. The American studies
scholar Andrew Delbanco titled his account of American culture The Death of
Satan: How Americans Have Lost the Sense of Evil (1995). The depersonalization
of evil may reshape twenty-first-century culture more than the “death of God”
noted by a previous generation of analysts. For cessationists, the real danger
of non-Christian beliefs is not demonic oppression but intellectual infidelity.10
Cessationists worry, first, about the presence of false doctrines and, second,
about the absence of what they judge to be true faith in Jesus. Critiques of acu-
puncture illustrate these concerns. One Christian Ministry is an international
association of Christian ministers that promotes “strict, conservative, non-
denominational, evangelical, ‘Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven’ preach-
ing, Holy Bible Word of God Believing.” A writer for One Christian Ministry
advises consumers to be “very cautious that no one is praying to a false god
over you, practicing an occult function, or possibly even a satanic ritual.” Actual
demonic powers need not be feared, because “if you are a saved Christian, and
have the Holy Ghost upon your life, this type of stuff has absolutely no power
74 the healing gods

over you whatsoever,” so even if something like this happened, one should
“just renounce it in the name of Jesus Christ.” Christians can avoid problems
by finding an acupuncturist who is a “professing Christian” and “does not
believe in the false doctrines wrapped up in acupuncture” or by researching
where the acupoints are and self-administering acupressure: just “pray for
protection from lies and evil and do the research, but again, be prepared to
identify and renounce false doctrines associated with this research.” The prob-
lem with false doctrines, according to physician Walt Larimore and professor
of nursing Dónal O’Mathúna’s Alternative Medicine: The Christian Handbook
(2006) is that acupuncturists “may try to convert patients to their Eastern
world view,” whereas an over-the-counter acupressure wristband “avoids expo-
sure to the Eastern religious beliefs underlying chi.” For Albert Dager, “the
real danger of acupuncture lies in the philosophical system.” Rather than
emphasizing the presence of false beliefs, Dager cautions that “there is one
extremely important ingredient missing in holistic medicine: a living faith in
Jesus Christ—the only source of true ‘wholeness.’ . . . There can be no healing
of the whole person (body, mind and spirit) without faith in Jesus Christ.”
Dager’s reasoning implies that if there is only an ingredient missing, acu-
puncture can be Christianized by supplying the missing ingredient.11
Seeds for defending Christian participation in CAM are implicit in the
logic through which Christians denounce CAM. If idolatry consists in false
beliefs rather than illicit actions, most actions can be legitimized by affirm-
ing that one’s own views are orthodox. In assessing CAM, biblically oriented
evangelicals draw inferences from passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:4-13: “We
know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but
one.” In the context of eating meat sacrificed to idols—a practice common
when the New Testament was written—“food does not bring us near to God;
we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” But “be careful, how-
ever, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to
the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowl-
edge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been
sacrificed to idols? . . . Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into
sin, I will never eat meat again.” Some evangelicals take this passage to mean
that Christians should avoid CAM. Christianity Today’s Holly Robaina argues
that even if a Christian is “strong” enough to engage in practices such as yoga
while rejecting idolatry, there is still an unacceptable danger of encouraging
weaker Christians to practice yoga in a manner that would be idolatrous.12
Other Christians find reassurance that since false gods have no real power,
they can be safely ignored. The Biblical Guide states that “if someone walks
into a health-food store and purchases a homeopathic remedy, thinking it is
 Is CAM Christian? 75

an herbal preparation, there does not seem to be any adverse effect spiritu-
ally. There is no transfer of faith. However, if they place their faith in healing
or protection from disease into homeopathy, adverse circumstances seem to
follow.” What the participant believes determines whether practices are idola-
trous. A Christianity Today editorial recounts the experience of an evangelical
pastor visiting a massage therapist. Already on the massage table, he noticed
“New Age” crystals in the room. He considered leaving, because he felt “fear-
ful of subjecting himself to spiritual forces. Then he remembered that in
Christ ‘all things in heaven and on earth were created . . . whether thrones or
dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him
and for him’ (Col. 1:16, NRSV). This pastor decided the ‘all things’ included
these crystals. So he prayed that Christ would exercise his lordship over them
and any evil spirits in the room.” The pastor, and the author, concluded that
Christians can simply overlook idolatrous beliefs because Jesus Christ has
defused their power.13

Bad Fruits
Christian censors seek to show that not only the roots but also the fruits of CAM
are bad. Criticisms focus on lack of scientific evidence that CAM is effective
or works through scientifically plausible mechanisms. The Catholic Bishops’
Committee on Doctrine charges that Reiki “lacks scientific credibility. It has
not been accepted by the scientific and medical communities as an effective
therapy. Reputable scientific studies attesting to the efficacy of Reiki are lack-
ing, as is a plausible scientific explanation as to how it could possibly be effica-
cious.” The authors of Alternative Medicine: A Christian Handbook worry that
“modest results found in research” for acupressure imply that “occult spiritual
powers are called upon during treatment.” Healing at Any Price? notes that
even “the acupuncturists themselves admit that these meridians have nothing
in common with nerves and blood vessels.” This guide also warns that there
is “no other explanation” for how homeopathic remedies could work “than
an occult one, or a placebo effect.” Dónal O’Mathúna rejects CAM therapies
that have “failed to demonstrate significant benefits in controlled trials, e.g.,
iridology, homeopathy, and aura healing,” and concludes that “given the sci-
entific controversy regarding its effectiveness and its spiritual foundations,
Christians should question their involvement” with homeopathy and related
practices. Of even greater concern to O’Mathúna is that “almost half of these
active as TM trainers reported episodes of anxiety, depression, confusion,
frustration, mental and physical tension, and inexplicable outbursts of anti-
social behavior. Other studies have documented adverse effects as serious as
76 the healing gods

psychiatric hospitalization and attempted suicide.” These examples illustrate

reduction of the fruits test to questioning medical benefits. By implication, if
CAM can be medically validated, these same Christians might decide that the
fruits are good.14
Christians do sometimes worry about spiritual roots, even when physi-
cal fruits seem desirable. Journal of Christian Nursing editor Judy Shelly wor-
ries that “the predominant attitude is, If it works, use it.” John Newport’s The
New Age Movement and the Biblical Worldview (1998) challenges the logic of
evangelicals who “contend that scientific evidence supporting Therapeutic
Touch methods are in short supply, and that until the ‘Does it Work?’ issue
is resolved, Therapeutic Touch should be avoided.” Newport argues that “the
crucial question is not just whether objective (or subjective) healings actually
take place, but what they mean. In the area of universal energy the interpreta-
tion proceeds from the spiritual precepts of the New Age movement.” Critics
such as Newport return to the roots standard as a check on claims that CAM
produces the good fruit of medical efficacy.15

Patterns in Evangelical Cultural Appropriation

Application of the roots and fruits standard delineates boundaries between
evangelicals and the “world” and regulates which cultural resources can be
appropriated. The appropriation process typically proceeds through predict-
able stages. First, Christians express wariness that new cultural trends may
be inherently corrupt. Recalling the biblical image that the devil prowls “like
a roaring lion” trying to devour Christians, evangelicals worry about being
caught unaware by insidious influences masquerading as innocent cultural
practices. When, for example, extrabiblical song lyrics, novels, movies, and
rock-and-roll musical styles first gained popularity, many Christians rejected
these cultural forms. Evangelicals reasoned, along the lines of media critic
Marshall McLuhan, that “the medium is the message” or that regardless of
content, particular media forms affect society in similar ways. Yet as new-
ness fades, so does perceived threat. Each once-new practice becomes nor-
malized as one among many cultural options. Today many theologically
conservative Christians comfortably adopt popular musical, literary, and cin-
ematic styles. A similar progression seems to be occurring with CAM. When
the holistic health-care movement first became prominent in the 1970s,
evangelicals expressed alarm. John Wimber, founder of the Association of
Vineyard Churches, articulated a typical warning in his book Power Healing
(1987): holistic medicine is “at odds with historic Christianity” since it brings
with it “Eastern religions,” “pantheism,” and the “occult,” and teaches that
 Is CAM Christian? 77

“all creation is God.” By the 1990s, concerns were muted as CAM became
commonplace.16
In borrowing resources from the surrounding culture, evangelicals pick up
on the most popular cultural trends as offering the greatest opportunities for
achieving evangelical goals. First, they seek to evangelize non-Christians by
creatively presenting the gospel in culturally relevant ways. Second, Christians
want to help one another grow spiritually. Finally, evangelicals may be least
vocal about, but most motivated by, a third goal: finding a legitimate way to
access perceived benefits without compromising Christian identity.
Concerned about the presence of false beliefs and the absence of true ones,
evangelicals wanting to use CAM subtract non-Christian religious concepts
and add Christian ideas. First, evangelicals redefine practices often used for
religious purposes as religiously neutral physical techniques. Second, the
threat of contagion seems nullified by replacing the organic metaphor of
roots and fruits with the inorganic image of container and contents. If cul-
tural forms are merely neutral containers rather than the message itself, then
problematic content can be removed or replaced, much as ingredients may
be substituted in a recipe. Third, evangelicals rename practices by adding the
modifier Christian to the title and relabeling accompanying concepts with
Christian terms. If the usual title appears to have too many non-Christian con-
notations—such as yoga—evangelicals may replace that name with Christian
language.17
Several of these strategies may be illustrated by defenses of martial arts.
Wendy Williamson’s Christian Martial Arts 101 (2004) argues that “there are
two ways that Christians can Biblically be involved in the martial arts: 1. By
completely removing Eastern religious concepts that may be attached and
doing physical techniques as a form of exercise or sport. . . . 2. By replacing
Eastern religious concepts with Christian ones.” Williamson reasons that
“grapefruits and oranges are comparable because they are both fruits, but bas-
kets and apples are not comparable in the human scheme of logic. On the
other hand, martial arts are a lot like a basket.” The Christian Martial Arts
Network avers that “just as a basket is capable of holding any fruit, martial
arts are capable of holding the beliefs of any religion. Much like rock music
can be used to minister to youth and glorify God by changing the lyrics and
focus to Christ, so can martial arts.” The basket simile severs the organic con-
nection between roots and fruits by which non-Christian origins presumably
taint offspring practices. This allows Michael Chen, in Christianity & Martial
Arts Power (2002), to define “Christian chi” as the “power of God active within
the individual,” the “power provided through Jesus Christ becoming the life
energy for the Christian,” and “the power provided by the Holy Spirit and
78 the healing gods

not physical power or strength.” Taking the concept of qi from Taoism, Chen
Christianizes it by pronouncing that for the Christian, the root of this power is
God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit rather than the Tao.18
The addition of Christian language reframes CAM as Christian. Mary
Ann Finch’s book Care through Touch: Massage as the Art of Anointing (1999)
“places massage in the context of Christian care and Gospel values” by apply-
ing Christian language such as “anointing,” “incarnational service,” and “sac-
rament”—to identify the human body as a “sacrament and manifestation
of God.” Healing from the Heart: A Guide to Christian Healing (1998) affirms
that the hands of a Christian energy healer are “moved to where the mys-
tery of God’s Holy Spirit is particularly acting. . . . The healer is filled with all
the fullness of God.” Bruce and Katherine Epperly’s Reiki Healing Touch and
the Way of Jesus (2005) avows that the Reiki symbols join “the spirit within
us with God’s ‘sighs too deep’ for words”—an allusion to the Holy Spirit in
Romans 8:26—since the same energy “known as chi in Chinese spirituality
and medicine, and as ki in the Japanese culture from which reiki arose, and
as prana in Hindu Ayurvedic medicine . . . may be identified with the Christian
and Hebraic images of pneuma, the spiritual life force in all things.” The
ChristianReiki.org Web site delineates a Christian version in which “God,
Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit” act as “spirit guides,” aided by “additional
healing power from Archangel Michael, Gabriel and the other angels.” A Reiki
healer, Judith White, attests, “I was already a Christian when I began to use
Reiki, so I already knew that my spiritual guide is the Holy Spirit.” Robin
Littlefeather Hannon asserts that when she practices Reiki, “Jesus always
comes to attend and help with my sessions.” Linda Smith “‘reframes’ Healing
Touch within the Judeo-Christian heritage” by instructing 1,200 students
annually to see themselves as a “channel, a conduit or facilitator for the flow of
divine energy.” As Healing Touch practitioners meditate on the “Spirit,” they
“tap into the whole universal energy form field which is present within us.”
Christians sanitize energy healing by using Christian vocabulary to describe
concepts—such as human embodiment of divine energy and invocation of
spirit guides—learned from other religious traditions.19
Holistic healing becomes accepted as Christian through the speech act
of calling CAM Christian. Word-oriented evangelicals define a Christian
as someone who will “confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus” or verbally
self-identify as Christian. Thus, creation of a Christian alternative to any reli-
giously suspect practice consists most basically of verbally denying non-Chris-
tian religious allegiances and affirming that Jesus Christ is at the center of
this version of the practice. South African Sallee Don-Wauchope’s In Support
of Homoeopathy in the Light of the Bible (1993) defuses Christian suspicions by
 Is CAM Christian? 79

indicating her awareness of the charge that homeopathy is “New Age” and
works through “an occult energy and could make one vulnerable to Satanic
forces.” Instead of directly refuting this claim, Don-Wauchope accuses crit-
ics of being “on a witchhunt” and “seeing Satan in everything.” By requiring
homeopaths to “prove scientifically what the ‘vital force’ is,” critics subscribe
to “an anti-Christian philosophy that tries to insist on a scientific answer to
a moral question.” The theory of vital force is moral rather than scientific
because it is “how Hahnemann described fallen man’s immune system
struggling with diseases in a world of stress he was not designed to live in.”
Homeopathy advances the gospel by redeeming humans from consequences
of the Fall. The text asks rhetorically, “Does God want human beings to be
healthy? If either allopathic medication or homeopathic medication help them
to achieve this, then I believe God rejoices, especially if, in addition, this helps
man to achieve the peace that comes from a personal relationship with Jesus.”
Implicitly, homeopathy is superior to allopathic medicine, because it rejects
anti-Christian philosophies and cultivates a personal relationship with Jesus.
Rather than explain how homeopathy achieves these goals, Don-Wauchope
assures readers that this is the case by professing her own Christian identity.20
Christian defenses of CAM presume innocence by association: if com-
mitted Christians engage in a practice, the practice appears consistent with
Christianity. Monte Kline, a self-identified “Christian Clinical Nutritionist” and
director of Pacific Health Centers in Oregon, justifies dowsing since his train-
ing “came from a committed, doctrinally-sound, Spirit-filled Christian.” Kline,
in turn, “trained two other above reproach Christian men (one of them is a
pastor) in dowsing.” He implies that if dowsing were not Christian, Christians
would not do it. Dowser Lloyd Youngblood asserts that even “Moses and his
son, Aaron [Aaron was Moses’s brother, not his son, according to the Bible],
used a dowsing device referred to as ‘the Rod’ to locate and bring forth water.”
Youngblood also quotes Hosea 4:12: “My people consult a wooden idol, and a
diviner’s rod speaks to them.” The next verse adds that “a spirit of prostitution
leads them astray; they are unfaithful to their God,” but Youngblood does not
cite this verse, since it identifies divination with spiritual prostitution.21
For evangelicals, the language selected to describe a practice is all-important
to its meaning. One Christian Ministry speaks appreciatively of a “wonderful
pressure point located on the left wrist that helps relieve anxiety.” What matters
in assessing the legitimacy of acupressure is how one describes the pressure
point: “Now it’s known as two different things: ‘H7,’ which (obviously) I have
no problem describing it as that, or thinking of it that way. However, it’s also
known as the ‘spirit gate,’ or ‘spirit door.’ If you are a Christian, that should be
a big red flag for you! . . . To believe that points such as H7 or any other point
80 the healing gods

stimulates some sort of ‘spirit gate’ is not only blasphemous against the Holy
Spirit, but ignorant of the truth in Jesus Christ.” The author does not seem to
be aware that his preferred name—more accurately, HT 7—refers to the heart
meridian, thereby invoking qi theory. Nevertheless, One Christian Ministry
expresses confidence that non-Christian associations can be avoided by shun-
ning religious language.22
Even theologically conservative Christians exhibit optimism that Christian
CAM providers can administer purely physical techniques untainted by
non-Christian religion or else substitute Christian for non-Christian con-
tent. Sabrina Rocca, in “Reiki Christian,” declares that Reiki is “not at all a
religion; it is a technique that is designed to combat stress and disease in
order to improve one’s life.” Sara Wuthnow, chair of the Department of
Nursing at Eastern College in Pennsylvania, acknowledges that “centering” in
Therapeutic Touch and Healing Touch has “Eastern” origins, but it “is merely
a technique, however, not a religion.” In evaluating martial arts, the Christian
Research Institute concludes that the “instructor of a given school . . . becomes
the deciding factor. The instructor might present a martial art to students as
a strictly physical activity for fitness and protection, or as an all-encompass-
ing world view that involves religious elements.” Wendy Williamson main-
tains that although “martial arts was invented and developed in the Far East,
and therefore, took on by association the culture, religion, and philosophy
of its many teachers and students,” the practice is not religious “in and of
itself,” and can just as easily take on “the beliefs of Christian teachers.” The
Christian Martial Arts Network affirms that “we call ourselves Christian mar-
tial artists not because we are martial artists and also Christian, but because
we subscribe to the following tenets (ideals). . . . I pledge allegiance to my Lord,
Jesus Christ. . . . Like a soldier physically, mentally, and spiritually prepares
to protect a nation, and her freedoms and beliefs, a Christian martial artist
physically, mentally, and spiritually prepares to love God and do His will on
earth. . . . Black belt is not the end of a Christian walk, it is a new beginning.”
So rendered, martial arts are not only compatible with Christianity, they are a
Christian practice.23
Christian versions of CAM arise in reaction to charges that practices
are not Christian. The more certain Christians censure a practice, the more
likely it is that other Christians will create Christian variants in order to
avoid criticism while engaging in the practice. There are Christians who
practice chiropractic, acupuncture, and Therapeutic Touch, but there are
discrete fields of Christian yoga, Christian Reiki, and Christian martial arts.
Karate for Christ International president Daryl Covington’s Purpose Driven
Martial Arts (2006)—a title that plays off evangelical megachurch pastor
 Is CAM Christian? 81

Rick Warren’s best-selling Purpose Driven Life (2002)—begins with a char-

acteristically evangelical purpose statement: “Our Mission: To proclaim the
Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . via the medium, lessons, and discipline of mar-
tial arts.” Christian martial artists “separate” their practice of “specific fields
of scientific study”—in Covington’s case, karate, tae kwon do, hapkido,
and judo—from the Buddhist or Shinto beliefs of the founding teachers.
Covington denies that ki is a “mystical or magical force”; it is the “normal”
result of a “synergy of strength, speed, technique, timing, and willpower
coming together in harmony of purpose.” Christian martial artists combine
“the way”—a lifelong journey or philosophy of how to live, grow, and suc-
ceed—taught in the Hwa Rang “Code of the Ancient Warrior” with Bible
study to become “warriors for Christ.” The “Warrior Honor Code” of the
Christian martial artist is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
honor Him above all things. Believe in Jesus as Son of God, Savior, and
resurrected Lord.” The “highest goal in life” of the Christian martial artist is
“relationship with God through Christ.”24
Whether or not they feel the need to create a Christian variant, Christians
who want to use CAM also want to affirm their Christian identity. Deborah
is a nurse who enthusiastically told her colleagues about Therapeutic Touch,
only to be rebuffed with the charge “That’s the work of the devil!” The accu-
sation “bothered me a great deal,” even though Deborah had “left most of my
regimented parochial schooling behind.” She still did not want to be called
un-Christian. So she looked up all the healings in the New Testament and
“could find no suggestion of the devil’s work there; rather, I got the distinct
feeling that Jesus expected us to have faith in our ability to heal.” Having
embraced Therapeutic Touch but not wanting to renounce Christianity,
Deborah justified the practice as rooted in the Bible and producing the fruit
of healing. Like Deborah, many Christians defend their adoption of prac-
tices from outside historic Christian traditions by declaring that the roots
and fruits are good.25

Good Roots
The good roots argument has several variants, the selection of which depends
on how much work is deemed requisite to distance particular CAM practices
from non-Christian religious roots. First, supporters look for biblical roots,
or at least biblical parallels. Second, promoters claim that nonreligious tech-
niques have their origins in God’s created order. Third, Christians deny that
practices are inherently religious because they originated before non-Chris-
tian religions or subsequently shed religious associations.
82 the healing gods

Christian proponents seek biblical roots for CAM. The Bible and Homeopathy
(1989), written by Ronald R. Male and published by the London Missionary
School of Medicine, consists largely of Bible verses, interpreted as analogs
to homeopathic principles. When “Galatians 2.20 says, ‘I am crucified with
Christ,’ . . . it means Christ was crucified IN FACT but I was crucified IN
SIMILAR,” indicating biblical support for the homeopathic law of similars,
or like cures like. The Bible also backs the homeopathic “law of the infinitesi-
mal [that more dilute medicines are more potent]. Homeopathy works in the
infinitesimal: So does faith. ‘Faith as a grain of mustard seed.’ Matt. 17.20.” The
homeopathic “Law of Succussion and Attenuation” (potentization of medicine
by step-by-step dilutions plus shakings) parallels Philippians 2:6–8’s account of
the step-by-step process of “attenuation by which the Son stripped himself” and
“Christ Jesus”:

1. thought it not robbery to be equal with God,

2. but made himself of no reputation,
3. and took upon him the form of a servant,
4. and was made in the likeness of men,
5. He humbled himself,
6. And became obedient unto death,
7. Even the death of the cross.

By breaking the biblical passage down into seven steps, Male argues that “in
both the spiritual realm and in homeopathy attenuation does not detract from
the remedy’s usefulness, but increases it,” revealing the complementarity of
the Bible and homeopathy.26
Not only do biblical and homeopathic principles seem parallel, but bib-
lical heroes allegedly practiced homeopathy. The Homeopathic Revolution:
Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (2007) interprets
Exodus 32, in which Moses forces the Israelites to drink water containing gold
dust from an idol they had worshipped, as a homeopathic prescription: “it is
impressive and even amazing to note that the Bible perfectly describes how
homeopathic medicines made of mineral (gold) are manufactured—ground
up (the technical word is ‘triturated’) and then diluted in water. What is so
fascinating about Moses’ decision to make a medicine out of the golden calf
is that gold is known to cause various physical and psychological symptoms
when a person is exposed to it in overdose. . . . Gold has been found to cause
feelings of despair and hopelessness. . . . It seems that Moses determined that
the Israelites’ worshiping of false gods was the result of feelings of despair and
hopelessness and that their actions in this desert represented self-destructive
 Is CAM Christian? 83

behaviors that were suicidal.” Although the cited chapter does not say any-
thing about medicinal intentions—rather, Moses’ “anger burned,” and his
gold-drinking decree punished the Israelites for their idolatry—the interpola-
tion of homeopathic theory transforms the Bible into a textbook on how to
practice homeopathy.27
Defenders of CAM ideally trace a history of practice back to the Garden of
Eden, before sin and sickness entered the world. The Hallelujah Diet, devel-
oped by the Reverend George Malkmus (1934– ) after being diagnosed with
colon cancer in 1976, purportedly returns Christians to the diet originally
intended by God. In Genesis, God instructed his new creation: “I give you every
seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit
with seed in it. They will be yours for food.” It was only after the Flood—when
God destroyed most life because of rampant sin—that God allowed consump-
tion of animal foods, while also reducing the human life span to “a hundred
and twenty years” and then to “seventy years, or eighty” from antediluvian
lengths in excess of nine hundred. In developing his dietary regimen—which
consists of “85 percent raw, uncooked, and unprocessed plant-based food” and
“15 percent cooked, plant-based food”—Malkmus modified the Gerson and
Kelley diets, reframing their vitalistic premises within biblical language. As
Malkmus retells the Creation account,

God’s very own spark of life was breathed into the dust and became alive
in the world! And the pattern was set in Genesis 1:29 for sustaining that
life—transferred from one life form to another by the consumption of
living foods. But in man’s ignorance—which he mistakes for wisdom—
the simplicity of God’s system became lost. The modern views of nutri-
tion and health became as corrupt as anything else. . . . The life-force in
a plant is sustained by collecting sunlight via photosynthesis. That life-
force is then transferred directly to the human’s physical body that con-
sumes the plant—like a flame passed from one candle to another. This
is the simple yet brilliant way God designed to pass along the life-giving
energy from one living thing to another in the form of living foods.

Although criticizing modern food preparation as a corrupt departure from

the simplicity of God’s creation, Malkmus improves upon Edenic perfection
by using modern machines to extract just the juice from plants and to formu-
late proprietary plant concentrates. His for-profit company, Hallelujah Acres,
advertised as a “non-denominational Christian ministry,” sells juicers for $530
and Barley Max, “a certified organic whole-food concentrate . . . 100 percent
pure juice powder” for $44 per 8.5 ounces. Concentrated products avowedly
84 the healing gods

compensate for deficiencies in plants grown in a corrupt modern world, allow-

ing consumers to reclaim prelapsarian health.28
Supporters of diverse CAM practices trace biblical origin stories. Wendy
Williamson proposes that the history of martial arts began in the Garden of
Eden, since “everything and everyone in heaven and on earth belong to God
(Ps. 24:1–2; Col. 1:16–17).” Because they are rooted in the Bible, martial arts
present “another example of a gift given to us by God that Satan has tried
to steal” but that can be redeemed to fulfill its original purposes. Moreover,
the Old Testament sanctions warfare; the most frequently quoted proof text is
Psalm 144:1 (AV): “Blessed be the Lord my Strength, which teacheth my hands
to war, and my fingers to fight.” The Christian Martial Arts Network (CMAN)
cites Deuteronomy 20:1: “As for the towns of the nations the LORD your
God is giving you as a special possession, destroy every living thing in them.
You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites,
Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the LORD your God has commanded you. This
will keep the people of the land from teaching you their detestable customs
in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against
the LORD your God.” The CMAN uses the verse to authorize fighting, with-
out noting the context of warning against learning new religious practices.
Instead, the CMAN asks rhetorically, “Isn’t fighting unbiblical?” and responds
that “after all, it was God who invented the sword and the fight, to bring glory
and honor to Him.” Such reductions of martial arts to fighting techniques
deflect attention from religious aspects.29
Since, however, Jesus advocated peacemaking, justifications also portray
martial arts as parallel to the New Testament theme of spiritual warfare. Danny
White’s trademarked program, “ChristJitsu: The Way of Christ,” is “designed
to train Anointed Fighters for Christ in the art of spiritual warfare against
the evil forces in spiritual realms.” Although ChristJitsu instructors all hold
traditional black belts, as members of a “Bible based, Christ-centered organi-
zation,” they teach students to use God’s Word to “fight the good fight of the
faith (1 Timothy 6:12),” by participating in short-term overseas mission trips
sponsored by Martial Arts Ministries. Wendy Williamson’s Martial Arts the
Christian Way (2002) alludes to Ephesians 6:11–16, which charges Christians
to “put on the full armor of God.” When Christian martial artists “dress in
their uniforms and tie on their belts, they dress themselves in ‘righteousness’
and tie ‘truth’ around their waists. When they practice their techniques, they
block with the ‘shield of faith’ and punch and kick with the ‘sword of the spirit’
(the word of God).” Christian martial artist F. Jaramillo admonishes students
that they “should NEVER come to class without their Bibles in hand.” A 2007
article, “How Would Jesus Fight?” published by Focus on the Family, quotes
 Is CAM Christian? 85

Ultimate Fighting Championship titlist Quinton Jackson’s explanation of why

he took up mixed martial arts (MMA): “so I could beat up folks without getting
into trouble, and get paid for it.” Asked “Do you have any heroes?” Jackson
unhesitatingly answers: “Jesus Christ.”30
By emphasizing similarities between CAM and biblically authorized prac-
tices, defenders gloss differences and imply common roots. Reiki healers
reason that since the Bible teaches healing through laying on of hands and
Reiki teaches healing through laying on of hands, Reiki is consonant with
the Bible. Sister Mary Mebane performs Reiki because “Jesus Himself told us
(Mk 16:18) that we would lay our hands on the sick and they would recover.”
Reiki master William Rand reasons that since Jesus had secret teachings and
Reiki has secret teachings, Jesus likely used Reiki. Asking “Was Jesus a Reiki
Master?” Rand notes “many similarities between the laying on of hands heal-
ing Jesus did and the practice of Reiki. . . . The fact that Jesus had secret teach-
ings he gave only to those he had given healing power to is clearly indicated in
Matthew 13:10–11 and Mark 4:10–12 & 34. Secret knowledge is also part of the
Reiki teachings in that the symbols are secret as well as the process of doing
the attunements.” Therefore, “the available evidence clearly indicates so many
similarities it is likely the laying on of hands healing Jesus practiced must have
been very closely associated with an early form of Reiki.” Reducing Jesus’s
healing and Reiki to apparent similarities implies that all systems of touch
healing share common roots.31
Where it is difficult to make a case for specifically biblical origins, CAM
promoters instead argue that nonreligious techniques are rooted in the cre-
ated order. Given the assumptions that God created everything and that
Satan can only counterfeit rather than create anything new, Satan cannot ulti-
mately be at the root of any technique. If God created techniques, it follows
that God intends people to use them. A writer for the journal Homeopathy
cites 1 Timothy 4:1–5’s warning against following “deceiving spirits” that for-
bid receiving God’s gifts, since “everything God created is good, and noth-
ing is to be rejected.” Homeopathic medicines are good because they are
made by “diluting something that God created.” Describing homeopathy as
a God-created gift not only negates non-Christian origins but also hints that
those who reject homeopathy follow deceiving spirits. Mixed martial arts fan
Chris Kah reasons: “I don’t think God would give someone the gifts or the
opportunity to fight if He didn’t believe that it would further His kingdom”—
a logic that could be extended to justify almost any behavior. One Christian
Ministry authenticates acupuncture “since we have points in our bodies that
when pressed may help to cause healing to the body, that is something that
God made for us.” Because “the Chinese people did not create these points”
86 the healing gods

but only “discovered what God gave us . . . pressing these points and receiving
healing is in no way an anti-Christian action. After all, God wants you to use
these points. He wouldn’t have put them into all of our bodies if He didn’t!”
One Christian Ministry likewise notes that when people meditate, “endorphin
chemicals are released from the brain, and travel throughout the body. They
feel good! They feel like they are healing. This is something that God created
for us. Whether we call it ‘meditation,’ or ‘slowing down,’ ‘taking a break,’
‘relaxation,’ it’s something He wants us to do.” By this rationale, any healing
technique activates God-given properties of the body.32
Where non-Christian religious ties cannot be denied, Christians claim that
techniques originated before the religion or later became distanced from it,
so are not inherently religious. If religion was added later, it can just as easily
be peeled off as a superficial accouterment. Biblical Discernment Ministries
argues that karate is a physical technique “founded on scientific principles of
body movements.” Over time, “an Indian Buddhist priest named Bodhidharma
in the 6th century a.d. in China, synthesized karate techniques and Yoga med-
itation.” The author classifies karate as “science” but yoga meditation as “reli-
gion” and cautions that the mixture is contaminating. One Christian accepts
the “God given function” of meditation but rejects “false religious or false
‘spiritual’ doctrines that most ‘meditation’ techniques are wrapped up in!”
A Christianity Today editorial affirms that the “best approaches” to health care
“blend conventional and alternative medicines,” warning only that “alternative
treatments sometimes come packaged in world-views more akin to New Age
philosophies and plain old paganism than to orthodox Christian faith.” The
implied solution is to unwrap the packages.33

Good Fruits
For many Christian interpreters, more pressing than the origins question is
evaluating the fruit of current practice. While affirming that other-worldly
salvation is the most important fruit, Christians often equate good fruits
with efficacy in achieving this-worldly goals of relieving pain, increasing fit-
ness, or delivering other health benefits. Margaret is a “devout Catholic” who
turned to acupuncture after becoming “disenchanted with western medicine’s
approach” of prescribing multiple drugs for a painful condition. Margaret wor-
ried about “any New Age or Taoist philosophies or practices” that the acupunc-
turist might be using but decided to try it after a parish priest “said that if it
helped me, I should go for it.” A 1994 journal article on “Homoeopathy in the
Service of the Gospel” recalls that “pastors, Christian doctors and missionaries
have had great cause to thank God for this gentle, effective and inexpensive
 Is CAM Christian? 87

additional form of therapy which for years has brought benefit and relief from
acute and chronic illness.” “Away with wimpy Christians!” admonishes Karate
for Christ’s Daryl Covington, citing fruits of patience, discipline, and motor
skills to argue that karate benefits youth who suffer from learning disabilities
and poor coordination.34
Advocates emphasize that CAM is effective not only physically but also
spiritually, promoting evangelism and world missions and encouraging spir-
itual growth of Christians. Covington stresses that martial arts serve as an
“evangelistic tool” to “draw a crowd” and “reach children and teenagers with
the gospel of Jesus Christ.” The Champions for Christ karate team at Bob Jones
University—an institution in South Carolina that “exists to grow Christlike
character” in its students—brings “the Gospel to needy people throughout
the Southeast” as karatekas learn to “sharpen their soul winning skills, be an
encouragement to others, and use their skills to glorify God.” Campus Crusade
for Christ sends students on short-term mission trips in which they teach tae
kwon do because it “opens hearts to the gospel”; the Campus Crusade Web site
quotes an eighteen-year-old Guatemalan former gang member who, through
one such trip, not only found tae kwon do but “found God.” “Fight Pastor”
Brandon Beals of Canyon Creek Church in Washington uses MMA to “make
Jesus look good” and relate to “those who otherwise would not attend a tradi-
tional church.” The church-based Clarksville Mixed Martial Arts Academy in
Tennessee—“Where Feet, Fist and Faith Collide”—has the “unique ministry”
of using “knowledge of MMA to lead others to Christ” by reaching “young
men which many feel have been abandoned and neglected by the modern
church.” The guidebook Healing from the Heart similarly acclaims Christian
participation in Healing Touch, Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, and Reflexology,
because “some who have been away from the church, perhaps for years, are
finding their way back, having made a new and real connection with God
through bioenergy work.” Nurse Judy Chuster praises Therapeutic Touch as a
“wonderful way to witness my Christianity.” Such justifications present CAM
as bearing the fruit of being more successful than the usual slate of Christian
activities in connecting people with God.35
Christian proponents present CAM as encouraging those who are already
Christians to grow spiritually. The “Benefits of Christian Meditation” vaunted
by Rhonda Jones on her Web site, thechristianmeditator.com, include not
only “Greater Health” and “Peace of Mind” but also “More Intimacy with God”
and “Greater Sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.” Meditation helps Christians to
“quiet our minds so we can move from knowing about God to knowing and
experiencing God in a personal way.” By implication, Christianity seems intel-
lectually abstract and divorced from experience. As a remedy, Jones advises
88 the healing gods

“sitting quietly before the Lord” and choosing a “Scripture or Mantra . . . a word
or scriptural passage (called a mantra) to anchor your mind, such as ‘the Lord
is my Shepherd’ or ‘Peace be Still’ or ‘Jesus.’” Jones attests that as you become
“fully present by paying attention to your breathing and your mantra. . . . you’ll
sense a greater feeling of God’s presence and a greater sensitivity to hearing
his voice.” The Christian Meditator masthead pairs a Bible verse, “Be still &
know that I am God.—Psalm 46:10,” with a picture of a woman holding the
kind of praying hands position (anjalimudra in Sanskrit, gassho in Japanese)
commonly used by Hindu and Buddhist meditators, reframed as cultivat-
ing Christian spiritual growth more effectively than do more traditionally
Christian devotional disciplines.36
Promoters of Christian CAM sometimes suggest that good fruits out-
weigh bad roots. Gotquestions.org describes acupuncture as “rooted in super-
stition, occultism, and false religions that are in direct opposition to God’s
Word” yet vindicates Christian participation by asking rhetorically, “If insert-
ing acupuncture needles into a person’s body at strategic points results in
physical healing or relief from pain, does it matter if the practitioner is wrong
about why it works?” After all, “much of Western medicine has its origin in
practices/individuals that were just as unchristian as the developers of acu-
puncture.” The author reasons that there are physical reasons that Western
medicine works to heal and relieve pain, and acupuncture also works to heal
and relieve pain; therefore, there must be physical reasons that acupuncture
works, making religious roots inconsequential. United Methodist Reverend
Jonathan Chadwick argues that the scientifically demonstrated health ben-
efits of TM offset any conflicts with Christianity. Chadwick, who attended
TM weekend retreats while in high school and spent one year of college at
Maharishi International University before attending seminary, asserts that the
“practice of TM really does not conflict with any religion.” Or “at least,” con-
cedes Chadwick, “whatever perceived ‘rubbing points’ there might be in the
opinion of some, are greatly outweighed by the benefits of TM, many of which
have been documented by years of scientific research.” By this logic, practical
benefits outweigh theological orthodoxy.37

Conclusion
The same American Christians who insist that Christianity is the only way to
salvation, who criticize Christians in other cultures for falling prey to syncre-
tism, and who would fastidiously avoid going to hear the Dalai Lama, having
their palms read by a psychic, or playing with a Ouija board do experiment
with health-promotion practices drawn from other religions. Christians who
 Is CAM Christian? 89

want to use CAM recall that conventional medicine has roots in Greco-Roman
religion, just as Easter eggs once represented pagan fertility rituals, yet these
associations faded over time. Calling attention to relatively rare “New Age”
practices such as channeling spirits or crystal therapy conjures exotic images
of non-Christian spirituality that normalize, or bring under the radar, more
common practices, such as taking a t’ai chi class or learning Reiki, even
though religious overtones of these practices are still alive.
The degree to which Christians acknowledge their religious borrowing var-
ies widely. In some cases, practices derived from religious traditions other
than Christianity have become so thoroughly integrated into the secular mar-
ketplace that most Christian practitioners are unaware of religious valences.
In other instances, Christians may be at least vaguely aware of religious con-
notations but hopeful that they can appropriate non-Christian resources for
Christian purposes. The Christian identity of many CAM practices remains
hotly disputed among theologically conservative Christians. Nevertheless,
CAM’s foot is in the door. And as CAM becomes an even more familiar feature
of the American cultural landscape, there is reason to expect that evangelicals
will perceive CAM’s popularity less as a threat and more as an opportunity to
use worldly means for godly ends.
Christian detractors and supporters of CAM employ a common repertoire
of standards for determining legitimacy but reach divergent conclusions,
because few evangelicals know enough about CAM to develop consistent lines
of reasoning. Paradoxically, fear of investigating beliefs categorized as New
Age or Eastern religions makes it more likely that evangelicals will engage in
practices that express the very worldviews that they find suspect, without recog-
nizing the religious implications. A classic teaching moment occurred when a
student approached me to say that his evangelical parents were worried about
his taking a religious studies class from me that discussed “other” religions;
his parents had not voiced concerns about his participation in a college yoga
class, and they had referred him to the family chiropractor. Presenting certain
CAM practices as rooted in Christianity and as producing evangelical beliefs
requires Christians to make factually inaccurate statements and internally
inconsistent arguments. By the same token, arguments wielded against CAM
bear the seeds of CAM’s legitimization by implying that all that is needed is to
unwrap techniques from religion, supply missing ingredients, and scientifi-
cally validate efficacy. The assumption that something can be either scientific
or religious but not both leads evaluators to overlook religious aspects of pro-
cedures categorized as scientific techniques. The roots and fruits metaphor
provides a pathway for persuading Word-oriented evangelicals that CAM is
Christian, by denying heterodoxy and affirming that CAM is rooted in Jesus
90 the healing gods

Christ and produces the fruits of physical and spiritual health. Evangelicals
remove lingering worries of contagion by shifting to container-contents imag-
ery to claim that CAM can become Christian by filling neutral containers with
Christian linguistic content.
Many Christians appear motivated to classify CAM as complementary to
Christianity. Desiring perceived benefits but not wanting to become tainted
by New Age or Eastern religions, Christians rationalize therapeutic experi-
mentation. Despite caring a great deal about whether CAM is religious and
whether it is Christian, evangelicals get sidetracked from these questions by
more immediate concerns with whether CAM improves health. Focusing on
whether CAM works deflects attention from asking why CAM is supposed to
work. Although evangelicals stridently defend orthodoxy, the efficacy standard
inhibits, instead of stimulating, theological reflection about CAM worldviews.
De facto, efficacy trumps concerns about non-Christian origins. Troubling
roots seem less relevant when fruits look good. Scientifically supported,
Christian CAM promises guilt-free benefits, making it seem possible to have
it all, a healthy body and a satisfied soul. This process is illustrated by a case
study of chiropractic in chapter 4.
 4
I Love My Chiropractor!

betty is a middle-aged pentecostal Christian who avoids yoga, acupuncture,

energy medicine, and other CAM therapies because of their “Eastern” reli-
gious roots. But Betty feels quite differently about chiropractic. She has gone
to chiropractors since age sixteen, seeking relief from pain suffered through
spinal cord injuries and whiplash. Betty describes her current chiropractor
as a “very devout Christian who prays over all her patients as she works on
them.” Betty adds affectionately that “most of the chiropractors I know are
Christians. I think that speaks something for the discipline itself.” Betty’s hus-
band, Bob, marvels, “I have always been impressed with the number of chiro-
practors we’ve met who are also Christians. It seems, from my observations
anyway, that there is a relationship between Christianity and chiropractic.” Bob
reasons that the “essence of righteousness” is to stand “upright” or “vertical”
before God, rather than “lean” on one’s own understanding (Proverbs 3:5), and
chiropractors restore the body’s “perfect balance and alignment.” Thus, “it is
the core issue of balance, alignment, and uprightness that brings Christianity
and chiropractic into a relationship.” Yet Betty and Bob both “reinforce” that
chiropractic is “mostly mechanical, and definitely not spiritual.” Betty likens
chiropractors both to medical doctors whom “God uses” and to “natural phe-
nomena”—like the Bible’s “lump of figs for Hezekiah’s boil (2 Kings 20:7)”
and “wine for Timothy’s frequent infirmities (1 Timothy 5:23).” If chiroprac-
tic were spiritual, then the content of chiropractic philosophy would have to
be unambiguously Christian to meet Betty and Bob’s evangelical standard of
legitimacy. But viewed as a mechanical, medical, natural technique, chiroprac-
tic seems religiously neutral, or even related to Christianity.1
Betty and Bob’s enthusiastic acceptance of chiropractic exemplifies the atti-
tude of many twenty-first-century Christians. Indeed, Betty and Bob helped
shape popular Christian attitudes as published authors of pentecostal literature
92 the healing gods

denouncing practices such as Freemasonry as un-Christian. Despite rational-

izations like Betty and Bob’s, chiropractic developed from Western metaphys-
ics, and its modern premises are more like those of yoga, acupuncture, energy
medicine, and Freemasonry than biomedicine or evangelical Christianity.
Chiropractic’s founders renounced Christianity and modern medicine, and
for its first seventy-five years, most Americans rejected chiropractic as a medi-
cally and religiously suspect “medical cult.”
Today chiropractic is mainstream: its offices can be found in strip malls;
medical insurance plans cover adjustments; and evangelical Christians
applaud chiropractic as a God-given method of pain relief. Although efforts to
transplant chiropractic overseas produced weak offshoots, chiropractic thrived
in American cultural soil. The number of chiropractors grew from 16,000
in 1930 to 66,000 in 2000, 57,000 of whom worked in the United States,
making chiropractic a distinctly American phenomenon. Treating 5 million
people annually, practitioners have adjusted 10 percent of the U.S. population.
Chiropractors and medical doctors practice in the same clinics and hospitals,
often in formal partnerships. This is not to say that expressions of disdain for
chiropractic, especially by those invested in allopathic or osteopathic medi-
cine, have disappeared. But the major cultural contest over chiropractic is over,
and chiropractic has won the day.2
The cultural mainstreaming of chiropractic invites explanation. How did a
practice once widely classified as medically and religiously illegitimate come
to be reclassified as legitimate by many Americans, including evangelical
Christians? Many people assume that chiropractic has always been a nonreli-
gious health-care option much like modern medicine but less interventionist
and more natural. Those who are aware of chiropractic’s metaphysical origins
may assume that the practice gained acceptance because it shed its religious
philosophy. But chiropractors entered the mainstream not by jettisoning con-
troversial religious views but by straddling metaphysical, biomedical, and
evangelical vocabularies to appeal to diverse constituencies. Chiropractic
thrived on the borders of competing epistemologies. It developed as a tra-
dition-in-tension within itself to establish dual cultural citizenship, claiming
the prestige of modern science while appealing to antimodern longings for
natural, spiritually pure remedies.
Strategic marketing by chiropractors seeking a clientele met a culture
poised to embrace therapeutic benefits. In a bid for inclusion within main-
stream medicine, spokespersons for the major chiropractic organizations
developed promotional literature using scientific-sounding terminology that
muted religious overtones. Simultaneously, chiropractors who combined
ideas from Western metaphysics and theologically conservative Christianity
 Chiropractic 93

appealed to spiritually hungry seekers and pain-motivated evangelical core-

ligionists. Evangelical patients who worried about theological orthodoxy yet
desired pain relief reclassified chiropractic from an illegitimate, New Age spir-
itual practice to a legitimate, scientific complement to medicine and prayer.
In a culture in which pain has been emptied of positive religious meanings,
the drive to avoid pain led many Americans to nuance their understand-
ings of science, chiropractic, and Christianity so that they are experienced as
complementary.3

The Metaphysical Philosophy of Early Chiropractic

Chiropractic developed out of Western metaphysical traditions, including mes-
merism, spiritualism, and vitalism. Daniel David Palmer (1845–1913) reputedly
“discovered” chiropractic in 1895, when he performed the first “adjustment,”
using spinal manipulation to restore hearing to an African-American janitor
named Harvey Lillard. During the nine years preceding his discovery, Palmer
practiced animal magnetism, or mesmerism. A self-styled “Spiritualist,”
Palmer attributed chiropractic philosophy to spiritual “communications” from
a deceased physician. Palmer coined the term chiropractic in 1896, after asking
a patient, the Presbyterian Reverend Samuel Weed, to suggest several Greek
names. Combining the words cheir (“hand”) and praktos (“done”), chiropractic
means “done by hand.” Palmer may have selected the term over alternatives
after seeing references to “cheiromancy,” or palm reading, in metaphysical lit-
erature, which Palmer read avidly. Chiropractors read spines much as palmists
read hands, both of which were interpreted as windows onto human destiny.4
Given Palmer’s eclectic religious interests, it is not surprising that he con-
sidered defining chiropractic as a “religion.” Instead, though, he heralded chi-
ropractic as a middle ground between Christian Science (founded in 1875) and
medicine. Palmer articulated his understanding of chiropractic as uniquely
integrating spirit and matter in a 985-page textbook titled The Chiropractor’s
Adjuster: Text-book of the Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic (1910). “The
New Theology” of healing or the “religion of chiropractic,” to quote Palmer,
stood on a “religious plank” termed “Innate Intelligence,” or simply “Innate.”
Palmer expounded: “That which I named innate (born with) is a segment
of that Intelligence which fills the universe,” a “part of the Creator.” Innate
is synonymous with “the Greek’s Theos, the Christian’s God, the Hebrew
Helohim, the Mahometan’s Allah, Hahneman’s [sic] Vital Force, New Thot’s
[Thought’s] Divine Spark, the Indian’s Great Spirit, Hudson’s Subconscious
Mind, the Christian Scientist’s All Goodness, the Allopath’s Vis Medicatrix
Nature.” Palmer insisted that chiropractic could not be practiced effectively
94 the healing gods

apart from a philosophy that affirmed the essential unity of all the world’s
religious and medical systems.5
Palmer adopted vitalistic ideas abroad in the culture, and his genius lay
in his ability to theorize a mechanism by which a spiritual force—Innate
Intelligence—directs the material universe. “We are well,” Palmer announced,
“when Innate Intelligence has unhindered freedom to act thru the physical
brain, nerves and tissues. . . . Diseases are caused by a LACK OF CURRENT
OF INNATE MENTAL IMPULSES.” Even a minor displacement, or “sub-
luxation,” of spinal vertebrae causes tension or laxity in nerve “tone,” alter-
ing the vibratory transmission rate of the nerves. Vertebral “adjustments”
restore nerve tone, allowing Innate to “care for and direct the functions of the
body.” For Palmer, the necessity of keeping individuals adjusted to Innate had
implications for the cosmic evolutionary process that gave the chiropractor
a religious mandate: “Knowing that our physical health and the intellectual
progress of Innate (the personified portion of Universal Intelligence) depend
upon the proper alignment of the skeletal frame, prenatal as well as postnatal,
we feel it is our right and bounden duty to replace any displaced bones, so that
the physical and spiritual may enjoy health, happiness and the full fruition of
earthly lives.” In Palmer’s view, chiropractors had a religious duty not only to
remedy diseases but also to perform an act of service to Innate by adjusting
human spines.6
As leadership of the fledgling chiropractic profession passed from Palmer
to his son, Bartlett Joshua Palmer (1881–1961), its religious distinctiveness
from Christianity intensified instead of fading. B. J. Palmer headed the
Palmer School of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa (founded by D. D. Palmer
in 1897) for fifty years, during which time he trained an estimated 75 percent
of all chiropractors. Despite bitter disagreements among chiropractors, for
the first half of the twentieth century, no individual was as influential as B. J.
Palmer in shaping and speaking for the profession. Although D. D. Palmer
had been cautious not to offend those with Christian beliefs, his son argued
provocatively that “the great men of all times, the men who have done things,
have been either rank theological-Biblical-infidels or agnostics.” Revisiting his
father’s idea of declaring chiropractic a religion, B. J. Palmer decided against
it, because chiropractic has no use for a “deity to which we can direct instruc-
tions of how to run the universe, or a soul to save for heaven or from hell.”
Asking Do Chiropractors Pray? in a book by that title, B. J. Palmer answered
definitively that “no Chiropractor would pray on his knees in a supplication to
some invisible power.” He conceptualized “Innate Intelligence WITHIN man
as the all-wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Director-General who
asserts that THE ONLY possible cause and cure are WITHIN man.” Because
 Chiropractic 95

“it is interference with the supply of mental impulse that is back of every dis-
ease,” instead of praying (or using medical treatments), “the thing to be done
is to adjust the (cause) subluxation.” Given B. J. Palmer’s understanding of chi-
ropractic as an incompatible alternative to Christianity and biomedicine, it
is noteworthy that many of the chiropractors he trained attracted extensive
clienteles by integrating the Palmers’ metaphysical philosophy with science,
seeker spirituality, and evangelicalism.7

Adjusting Chiropractic’s Reputation: Mechanical

Science or Harmonial Religion?
At the turn of the twenty-first century, most chiropractors recognize D. D. and
B. J. Palmer as the “discoverer” and “developer” of the profession, but there
is not a consensus about the significance of the Palmers’ religious philoso-
phy to the “science” and “art” of modern chiropractic. The relevance of early
chiropractic philosophy to modern chiropractic is hotly contested not only
among chiropractors but also among scholars of chiropractic and CAM, some
of whose tone implies a personal stake in whether or how chiropractic is “reli-
gious.” The meanings of chiropractic are culturally charged, making neutral
analysis difficult to achieve.8
Intense intramural rivalries marked the history of chiropractic from the
beginning, often referred to as a division between “straights” and “mixers”
(purists who held closely to the Palmers’ philosophy versus experimentalists
who added therapies). Historian J. Stuart Moore suggests that it is more use-
ful to think of a distinction between “harmonial” and “mechanical” chiroprac-
tors. Harmonial chiropractors seek to restore harmony with life-force energy;
mixers make up an overlapping group of those who see parallels between
Innate and other concepts of vital energy, such as prana, qi, or vital force, and
incorporate practices, including yoga, acupuncture, and homeopathy, from
these traditions. Mechanical chiropractors downplay the Palmers’ vitalism and
insist that spinal manipulations are scientific.9
Chiropractic historians who feel uncomfortable with the Palmers’ seem-
ingly premodern religious views, embarrassed by their antimedical statements,
and eager for the profession to achieve scientific legitimacy have understated
the influence of harmonial chiropractic. The National Chiropractic Malpractice
Insurance Company Group (which insures 37,000 chiropractors) commis-
sioned a history, The Chiropractic Profession (2000), written by attorney David
Chapman-Smith. The book minimizes B. J. Palmer’s influence by characteriz-
ing him as the leader of a “vocal minority” in contrast with the “growing main-
stream that set about developing mature standards of education and practice.”
96 the healing gods

Instead of providing quantitative evidence, Chapman-Smith employs terms

such as “growing mainstream” and “mature” to portray “scientific” chiro-
practic as normative and developmentally superior to the Palmers’ explicitly
overtalkative and implicitly immature and, hence, decreasingly influential
religious views.10
It is difficult to generalize about any practice as internally divided and exter-
nally contested as chiropractic. There is, however, evidence that the harmonial
tradition plays an ongoing role in modern chiropractic (for both mixers and for
straights), but this role has been underestimated, because mechanical chiro-
practors intentionally redefined chiropractic as “scientific.” Adopting what his-
torian R. Laurence Moore calls a “rhetoric of denial,” spokespersons obscured
the importance of religion to chiropractic. Peter Bryner’s 1987 article, “Isn’t
It Time to Abandon Anachronistic Terminology?” laments that references to
“innate intelligence” and “vitalism” pervaded professional journals published
in the 1980s. Bryner, whose avowed goal is integrating chiropractic into the
health-care system, considers religious-sounding terminology an impediment
to scientific credibility. Unless chiropractors shed their “dogmatic”-sounding
language, Bryner opines, “what justification is there that chiropractic is not a
religion?” Bryner advocates replacing the terms “Innate” and “vitalism” with
the religiously neutral terms “homeostasis” and “holism.” Homeostasis can,
without mention of Innate, denote an “ability of the body to repair itself in cer-
tain optimal circumstances.” Holism can be unmoored from vitalism and still
express an “inherent property of complex systems to maintain and enhance
complexity against the dissipative tendency which is embodied in the second
law of thermodynamics.” Bryner is less concerned with developing an alter-
native philosophy for chiropractic than with presenting the profession using
scientific language.11
Chiropractors sympathetic to Bryner’s agenda of linguistic modernization
shaped the policy statements issued by every major chiropractic organization
in the 1990s and 2000s. The American Chiropractic Association’s (ACA)
“Policy Statement” (1994) defined an “adjustment” in mechanical terms as
“any chiropractic therapeutic procedure that utilizes controlled force, lever-
age, direction, amplitude and velocity which is directed at specific joints or
anatomical regions.” Official brochures compare “Innate” with more scien-
tific-sounding concepts such as “electricity” or “nerve force,” or dispense with
the term altogether. Substituting “inherent” for “innate,” the Association of
Chiropractic Colleges’ “Position Paper” (1996) defines chiropractic as a “health
care discipline that emphasizes the inherent recuperative power of the body
to heal itself without the use of drugs or surgery.” Innate is now one of several
terms rather than a unifying concept, and it connotes a physiological rather
 Chiropractic 97

than a spiritual property: the “body’s innate recuperative power is affected

by and integrated through the nervous system.” The 5,000-member World
Chiropractic Alliance’s (WCA) “Practice Guidelines for Straight Chiropractic”
(1993) emphasize the physiological attributes of subluxations, redefined as an
“alteration of nerve function and interference to the transmission of mental
impulses, resulting in a lessening of the body’s innate ability to express its
maximum health potential.” Remaining silent about chiropractic philosophy,
promotional literature oriented toward the medical mainstream recasts chiro-
practic in language congenial to modern, scientific sensibilities.12
The prevalence of scientific-sounding language in policy statements does
not mean that most modern chiropractors have abandoned metaphysics.
Quackwatch researcher Jack Raso estimated in 1994 that “only a few hundred”
chiropractors reject the Palmers’ philosophy and merely treat “neuromusculo-
skeletal conditions of a nonsurgical nature.” Among this group are the approx-
imately one hundred members of the National Association for Chiropractic
Medicine (NACM), founded in 1984, who “renounce the chiropractic hypothe-
sis and/or philosophy” that “subluxation is the cause of dis-ease,” and “confine
their scope of practice to the treatment of joint dysfunctional disorders.” The
NACM’s national executive director, Ronald Slaughter, D.C., explained why
his organization had disbanded by 2010: “We tried. We failed. Chiropractic is
a ‘failed’ profession.” As a self-consciously minority organization, the NACM
tried, and failed, to influence major organizations such as the 15,000-mem-
ber ACA (the single largest chiropractic organization) and the 8,000-member
International Chiropractors’ Association (ICA).13

The Harmonial Philosophy of Modern Chiropractic

Harmonial religious views undergird modern chiropractic philosophy. The
chiropractic historian Joseph Donahue estimated in 1992 that—regrettably, in
his view—80 percent of chiropractors “subscribe to some version” of Innate, a
doctrine whose influence has been “far greater than it should have been . . . con-
sidering its scientific merit.” The Philosophy of Chiropractic by Terry Rondberg,
founder and CEO of the WCA as of 2013, identifies the “major premise” of chi-
ropractic as being that “a Universal Intelligence is in all matter and continually
gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence.” It fol-
lows that “the expression of this intelligence through matter is the chiropractic
meaning of life.” Thus, “all living things have inborn, or Innate Intelligence,”
“health is the expression of the Innate Intelligence through Innate Matter,
via Innate Energy,” and “when there is interference with the transmission of
Innate Energy, the result is a decrease in the expression of Innate Intelligence,
98 the healing gods

which chiropractors call dis-ease.” Such a notion of innate energy as purpose-

fully expressing universal intelligence is more expansive and teleological than
conventional scientific concepts.14
Large-scale survey research confirms that most chiropractors hold
views consistent with those of the Palmers. The Institute for Social
Research at Ohio Northern University published the results of the first-
ever profession-wide survey, How Chiropractors Think and Practice (2003),
led by a chiropractor, William McDonald. The study concludes that “the
profession—as a whole—presented a united front regarding the sublux-
ation and the adjustment. . . . When it comes to broad [i.e., mixer] scope and
focused [i.e., straight] scope chiropractors, the old stereotypes are mislead-
ing. . . . On most issues, broad scope and focused scope chiropractors differ
more in degree, than in kind.” The “typical North American chiropractor,”
regardless of whether a broad scope/mixer (34 percent), a focused scope/
straight (19 percent), or a middle scope (47 percent), believes that “adjust-
ment should not be limited to musculoskeletal conditions” (90 percent),
“subluxation” is a “significant contributing factor in sixty-two percent of
visceral ailments,” and only 40 percent of prescribed medicines are ben-
eficial; 50 percent question the value of immunization. Asked whether
adjustments usually help in the following cases, chiropractors said yes
for tension headache (99 percent), migraines (89 percent), dysmenor-
rhea/menstrual pain (84 percent), allergic-type asthma (76 percent), and
otitis media/middle-ear infections (77 percent). The typical chiroprac-
tor “performs a broad spectrum of routine clinical services,” including
“periodic maintenance/wellness care” (94 percent), exercise recommen-
dations (98 percent), stress reduction (87 percent), nutrition advice (88
percent), vitamin/herbal recommendations (72 percent), and “teaching a
relationship between spinal subluxations and visceral health” (77 percent).
Supermajorities agree that chiropractic’s scope of practice includes acu-
pressure (94 percent), acupuncture (77 percent), massage (93 percent),
herbs (91 percent), and homeopathy (82 percent).15
Despite issuing policy statements that present chiropractic as mechanical
science, when writing for one another and for patients who share metaphysi-
cal perspectives, many modern chiropractors do not hesitate to augment
physiological rationales with harmonial explanations of why adjustments
work. J. Stuart Moore noted in 1993 that “chiropractic journals are full of neo-
fundamentalist appeals for ‘Revival in Chiropractic’ which embrace the old-
time views. . . . This strong harmonial resurrection within chiropractic orients
these chiropractors to the Palmer legacy and focuses on differences rather
than similarities with orthodox medicine.” Browsing peer-reviewed journals,
 Chiropractic 99

commercial magazines, and books published by chiropractic associations

from the 1990s to 2013 yields a wealth of texts that confirm Moore’s and the
Ohio survey’s conclusions. Authors quote appreciatively from the Palmers,
personify Innate Intelligence, and emphasize the philosophical distinctive-
ness of chiropractic relative to biomedicine. Authors use Innate Intelligence
as a spiritual concept, reminding readers of the “power of your inner spirit,
soul or innate intelligence,” since “we do not only consist of flesh and blood,
but also of a soul and spirit. It is these intangible and unseen components that
are often overlooked as potential interferences with our innate gift to be well.”
Since “Innate Intelligence . . . already has the intention and control of all the
components needed” for the “expression of health,” as long as the chiroprac-
tor makes “certain that the adjustment is given correctly . . . innate will step
in and do the rest.” In his “Chairman’s Message” for 1998, Edward Maurer
writes in the Journal of the American Chiropractic Association that chiroprac-
tic is “steeped in philosophy” that “always adheres to the basic premise of
universal or innate intelligence.” Articles in the ACA journal published as
recently as 2013 offer metaphysical descriptions of Innate and affirm its con-
sonance with vitalistic practices such as Ayurvedic medicine, acupuncture,
and t’ai chi.16
Although the ACA and the WCA disagree over whether the scope of chi-
ropractic should be broad or focused, they are alike in crafting public-policy
guidelines using the language of scientific reductionism while voicing a har-
monial philosophy in publications directed toward chiropractors and patients.
Chiropractor Mike Reid elaborates on the spiritual meanings of Innate in a
2007 article in the Chiropractic Journal: A Publication of the World Chiropractic
Alliance:

We are spiritual beings who are a piece of an entire bigger picture with
a purpose in life. . . . As chiropractors, we already know that the univer-
sal intelligence, lies within us as innate intelligence, causes our heart
to beat, digests our food, and allows us to think as free people. . . . We’ve
got to get back into a vibrational alignment where limitations of thought
don’t exist . . . because when we’re in a state of fear, worry, jealousy or
hatred we vibrate at a different frequency that will not attract from the
universe, but will repel from it, that which we want. . . . Listen to your
innate. . . . Sit in a lotus position with your palms opened up. See your-
self as one and the same with the universe.

Although the WCA is an organization of straights, members such as Reid

envision a complementarity between chiropractic and practices—such as
100 the healing gods

sitting in a lotus position—from other vitalistic traditions that seek rapport

with cosmic energy.17
Responding to published pleas of mechanical chiropractors to shed the
“dogma” of Innate in order to achieve medical legitimacy, harmonial chi-
ropractors publish calls for a “return to our roots of allowing the patients’
innate intelligence to perform freely and without interference.” One text
after another begins with quotations from the Palmers and then concurs that
“the philosophical basis of chiropractic is that the body is self-regulating and
self-maintaining, directed by a vitalistic force called Innate Intelligence.” In
a 2006 article for The Chiropractic Choice: A Publication of the International
Chiropractors Association, Christopher Passalacqua declares that “our phi-
losophy is what fundamentally sets us apart from the rest of the healthcare
industry. . . . As chiropractors we believe that all healing comes from within,
(above-down inside-out), we believe that there is a Universal Intelligence
(Principle #1) that gives rise to all things, including our body’s Innate
Intelligence. We believe that life is necessarily intelligent (Principle #2) and
there can be interruption to the transmission of Innate forces (Principle #29)
that would cause our bodies not to adapt.” Rearticulations of chiropractic
philosophy similar to Passalacqua’s reverberate across journals published by
major chiropractic organizations.18
How aware are patients of chiropractic philosophy? The official legal
counsel for the National Chiropractic Malpractice Insurance Company,
David Chapman-Smith (cited earlier as seeking to minimize the Palmers’
influence) helps answer this question. Despite wanting to rescue chiroprac-
tic from charges of religious backwardness, Chapman-Smith notes that
consumers are “pulled towards” chiropractic because providers regularly
communicate philosophical differences between CAM and biomedicine.
Chapman-Smith estimates that two-thirds of chiropractors offer “lifestyle”
prescriptions such as macrobiotic diets, megavitamin therapy, imagery,
homeopathy, herbs, energy healing, biofeedback, hypnosis, and acupunc-
ture (see figure 4.1). The motion picture Jacob’s Ladder (1990) illustrates
the resonance between chiropractic philosophy and seeker spirituality that
privileges experiences of spiritual energy over institutional loyalty or creedal
orthodoxy. In the film, the emotionally traumatized protagonist, Jacob
Singer, cannot trust anyone he meets, except his chiropractor, Louis, who
gives spiritual advice while adjusting, offering the only convincing explana-
tion of the meanings of his life, death, and immortality. Chapman-Smith
suggests that in a variety of real-life situations, individuals who might go
to medical doctors and pray for healing also feel pulled toward the vitalistic
prescriptions of their chiropractors.19
 Chiropractic 101

figure 4.1 Nutritional supplements for sale in a chiropractor’s office, featuring

“vitalizing” herbs and an “easy cleanse,” 2011. (Courtesy Erin Garvey)

Chiropractic brochures targeted at patients—in contrast with policy state-

ments prepared for medical professionals and funding agencies—express har-
monial views. Chiropractic researchers Joseph Keating and others concluded
from their analysis of ACA and ICA brochures that it is “commonplace in
the profession,” in patient brochures and clinical practice, for chiropractors
to couple the “vitalistic concepts of ‘Innate Intelligence’” with the “magic and
mystery” of “subluxation dogma.” One evangelical patient describes how her
chiropractor communicated his philosophy: “In the chiropractic waiting room
(in the Bible Belt), I sit in one of the four chairs, all of which face a small tele-
vision. Today and every other day for the last year, Rhonda Byrne’s breakaway
hit, The Secret (2007), is playing on endless rotation, urging viewers to direct
their thoughts toward achieving their desires.” The TV was surrounded by bro-
chures for detoxifying foot baths, antistress capsules, kinesiology, and energy
medicine; a list of “health resources” directed patients to Deepak Chopra, TM,
acupuncture, homeopathy, naturopathy, Pilates, and yoga. When the chiro-
practor entered the waiting room, he explained that “we attract the positive
or negative into our lives. He chose the video, he said, because he agrees with
that message.” This particular chiropractor communicates a metaphysical
message, even to Christian clients.20
102 the healing gods

The Christianization of Chiropractic

One mark of chiropractic’s arrival in the American cultural mainstream was
its general acceptance, by the 1990s, in Christian subcultures, despite the
antipathy of chiropractic founders toward Christianity and early-twentieth-
century Christian condemnations of chiropractic as un-Christian. A 1977
article defining “Pseudo-Science and Pseudo-Theology” groups together chi-
ropractic, yoga, acupuncture, TM, Scientology, and Christian Science. All of
these movements are “unchristian” as well as “unscientific,” because they are
“essentially unanimous in their rejection of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity
and of the deity of Jesus Christ.” For most of the twentieth century, lists of
spiritually illegitimate therapies included chiropractic.21
Chiropractors responded to charges of heterodoxy by defending their
Christian identity. Although comprehensive data are unavailable, several sur-
veys suggest that many chiropractors—by one count, 88 percent—self-iden-
tify as Christian. Promotional materials directed toward Christian audiences
describe chiropractic in terms calculated to minimize perceived tension with
Christianity. In “A Christian Concept of Chiropractic Philosophy” (1952)—
dedicated in a handwritten note “to Dr. B. J. Palmer, leading chiropractor
and Chiropractic Philosopher, from his appreciative pupil”—H. L. McSherry
remains silent about Palmer’s overtly anti-Christian sentiments, instead argu-
ing that chiropractic is not a “religion, yet its philosophy resembles Christian
theology.” Identifying clergy as strategic allies against a powerful medical
establishment, McSherry courts clerical support. Since chiropractors and
clergy both strive to keep people adjusted to the created order, McSherry rea-
sons, they are natural associates: “Through prayer the clergyman strives to
keep man’s soul in tune with the Infinite! By manual vertebral adjustment, the
chiropractor frees the nerve paths to keep man’s body in tune with the same
Infinite Intelligence.” Playing upon Christian suspicions of modern science,
McSherry denounces the “evil effects” of medicine as “‘MED-I-SIN’—and sin
in any form we are definitely against!” McSherry appeals to Christian clergy:
“may we merit your sincere co-operation in our efforts to spread our gospel
of health to all the world.” Remaining vague about the meanings of Infinite
Intelligence and sin, McSherry glosses the distinction between the “gospel”
of chiropractic and Christianity, recasting chiropractic terminology to make it
accord with Christian theology.22
The most well-organized national association of Christian chiroprac-
tors, the Christian Chiropractors Association (CCA), advertises its evangeli-
cal self-identity. The CCA formed as a student group at the Palmer School
of Chiropractic in 1951 under the aegis of evangelical campus ministry
 Chiropractic 103

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, adding one thousand members nationwide

by 2006. An official “Statement of Faith” identifies the CCA as “conservative
in theology,” emphasizing world mission: “sending Christian Chiropractors
out to many whitened harvest fields with the Gospel of Christ and chiropractic
before Jesus comes.” In a linguistic flourish reminiscent of the Palmers’ cos-
mic vision reworked into the language of evangelicalism, the CCA presents
chiropractic as a gospel parallel nearly equal to the New Testament.23
CCA promotional materials solicit Christian clients by addressing evan-
gelical insecurities about their cultural position relative to secular medical sci-
ence and the rapidly growing phenomenon of pentecostal Christianity. Official
CCA spokesperson Glenn Hultgren contrasts chiropractic to the “reductionis-
tic or mechanistic philosophy” of biomedicine and the alleged faith healings
that pentecostal “Christians” perform by the power of “Satan and his false
spirits,” while preaching “powerful messages in pulpits around the world,
drawing huge followings, performing miracles of healing, casting out devils,
(slaying in the spirit) and telling the people that it is all in the name of the
Lord.” (Such denunciations make it all the more perplexing that pentecostals
have in recent years become vocal proponents of chiropractic.) Having identi-
fied nonpentecostal evangelicals and chiropractors as allied against common
opponents, Hultgren assuages potential evangelical concerns about chiroprac-
tic’s vitalistic philosophy by claiming biblical roots. In classic evangelical style,
Hultgren deploys a series of biblical references to argue that Innate is “part of
the immaterial nature which God breathed into man when He called man a
living soul. (Gen. 2:7; Acts 17:25; Ps. 36:9; Job 33:4).” Heightening his credibil-
ity by positioning himself as critical of the Palmers for “deify[ing] the vitalistic
nature,” Hultgren coins the phrase “theistic vitalism” to merge the concept of
Innate Intelligence with the Bible’s view of a creator God. Hultgren deflects
evangelical criticism by acknowledging that the Palmers held unorthodox reli-
gious views and insisting that his own beliefs are theologically conservative.
Although a relatively small percentage of Christian chiropractors belong to
the CCA, the organization’s rhetorical strategies reflect a broader impulse to
represent chiropractic philosophy and Christianity as complementary.24
As chiropractors sought Christian clients, patients who desired pain relief
responded favorably to chiropractic appeals. D. D. Palmer’s earliest clerical
apologist was the Presbyterian Samuel Weed, the same minister credited with
naming the profession. Having at first dismissed Palmer as an unorthodox
charlatan, Weed reversed his opinion when his daughter and he experienced
pain relief subsequent to Palmer’s treatments. Preaching Palmer’s funeral
sermon in 1913, Weed sought to persuade his audience that chiropractic and
Christianity converge. The term “Innate,” Weed asserted, appears in the New
104 the healing gods

Testament. James 1:21 instructs the Christian to “receive with meekness the
engrafted word, which is able to save your soul.” The phrase “engrafted word”
could instead, according to Weed, be translated as “Innate.” Similarly, 1 Peter
5:10 uses the word “adjustment”: “But the God of all grace, who hath called
us into his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while,
make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you.” The word translated as
“perfect” means “adjust” in the original Greek, Weed argued, indicating that
Jesus performed the ultimate spiritual adjustment. Weed used biblical pas-
sages to demonstrate the congruence of chiropractic and Christianity, even
when doing so required hermeneutical gymnastics. Chiropractic attracted a
thin stream of clerical defenders throughout the twentieth century. Writing
in 1977, the Baptist minister Ross Lyon used a series of biblical quotations
to compare chiropractic adjustments with the “great spiritual adjustment
[that] came on that cross.” Reverend George Boyajian, in an article written in
the 1950s and posted on the CCA Web site in the 2000s, affirmed that as a
Christian minister, he had “recommended Chiropractic as developed by the
Palmer School to many people.” Such clerical endorsements of chiropractic
were, however, rare for most of the twentieth century.25
By the 1990s, evangelicals sounded less certain that chiropractic should
be classed alongside other CAM therapies rejected as New Age. Ruth Gordon,
an author for “Watchman Fellowship: A Ministry of Christian Discernment”
(1992), cautions that chiropractic is “easily integrated with many other new
age therapies.” Yet Gordon quotes another evangelical publication, John
Ankerberg and John Weldon’s Can You Trust Your Doctor? The Complete Guide
to New Age Medicine and Its Threat to Your Family (1991)—out of context—
to emphasize that there is a category of “legitimate chiropractic,” which is
“within the realm of modern medical scientific practice.” Gordon omits the
next sentence from Ankerberg and Weldon, which concludes that the “great
majority” of chiropractors fall outside the category of legitimacy. Although
disagreeing about where most chiropractors should be classified, both texts
contrast New Age illegitimacy with “modern medical scientific” legitimacy.
Neither text expresses any sense of tension between the materialistic assump-
tions of biomedicine and a Christian worldview.26
Rather than interrogate chiropractic’s origins in Western metaphysics,
evangelicals asked whether chiropractic is guilty by association with New Age
or Eastern religious practices. New Age Medicine: A Christian Perspective on
Holistic Health (1987), from evangelical publisher InterVarsity Press, advises
Christians to avoid the “minority contingent of chiropractors who promote acu-
pressure, applied kinesiology and other questionable pursuits.” The authors
find it “particularly unsettling to see members of the Christian community
 Chiropractic 105

having their energies balanced by chiropractors and other therapists who

claim a Christian commitment and who feel that they are not involved in any
questionable practices. These practitioners may claim that Ch’i, yin and yang,
and meridians are neutral components of God’s creation (similar to electricity
and radio waves), available for anyone to use; but they ignore the roots of these
ideas.” Although recognizing that “classical chiropractic theory” expresses the
similar view that “spinal manipulations allow the Innate to flow more easily
through the nervous system,” the authors worry only about the “minority” of
modern chiropractors who combine spinal adjustments with “questionable,”
“Eastern” practices. Historian J. Stuart Moore observes that “evangelicals
seem to be unaware that, even though the Palmer ideology has certain affini-
ties to Eastern mysticism with its direction of unseen life forces and energies,
it is more clearly a popular manifestation of the Western harmonial tradition.”
Instead of commenting favorably or unfavorably on chiropractic’s harmonial
philosophy, evangelicals zeroed in on whether chiropractic is severable from
practices coded as Eastern, New Age religiosity.27
Having identified chiropractic as separable from New Age roots, two steps
remained to exonerate chiropractic from charges of illegitimacy: disentangling
“physical” techniques from “spiritual” rationales and presenting techniques
as “scientific” medicine. The Biblical Guide acknowledges that D. D. Palmer
“spoke of the ‘innate’ as a healing force,” but, the text qualifies, “to what degree
he ascribed a spiritual dimension to the innate is not clear.” The sparsely foot-
noted guidebook concludes that “a chiropractor who practices pure chiropractic
musculoskeletal medicine—focusing on adjustment of the spine—is operat-
ing purely in the physical realm.” The text implies that as long as a technique
is “purely” physical, and hence classifiable as “musculoskeletal medicine,”
the method can be unmoored from a suspect “spiritual dimension.” Another
Christian guidebook allows that chiropractic is spiritual “in the hands of some
practitioners” and advises Christians to avoid that subset. Internet-based “Let
Us Reason Ministries” determines that “out of all the new age practices that
are used today this [chiropractic] is one of the few that can be practiced apart
from its Occultic energy philosophy. This can only be done when physically
adjusting your spine excluding the occult view that is attached to it.” What sets
chiropractic apart from other “occult” practices is that it works to relieve pain:
“we should be careful not to call ALL chiropractic care occult or quackery. Many
Chiropractors do provide temporary and even permanent relief from pain, as
structural misalignments are corrected and nerves are relieved.” None of these
authors specifies how physical techniques can be disentangled from spiritual
rationales, yet they all appear confident that doing so is relatively easy (see fig-
ure 4.2). The authors (who do not concern themselves with reviewing clinical
106 the healing gods

figure 4.2 Chiropractor performing an adjustment. A wall poster encourages:

“Expect Miracles. We do.” The clinic motto is “Creating Wellness,” 2011. (Courtesy
Erin Garvey)

studies of efficacy, a topic of chapter 5 below) absolve chiropractic of the irre-

ligious label of “occult” and the unscientific label of “quackery,” because they
believe physical adjustments to be effective in relieving pain.28
Regardless of whether chiropractic is actually effective, its widespread
acceptance among evangelicals as medical science rather than New Age reli-
gion depends on the perception that the fruit of chiropractic is pain relief. The
CCA’s Glenn Hultgren asserts that Christian chiropractors differ from “New
Age holistic healers” by using methods that are effective because they “conform
to God’s created order.” Christian chiropractors deflect suspicions of New Age
leanings through simple speech acts of denial and affirmation: they are not
New Age; they are scientific. For evangelical health-care consumers, visiting a
doctor of chiropractic seems much like going to a medical doctor, only better.29

Combining Chiropractic, Medicine, and Prayer

Christians who need healing often combine chiropractic with medicine and
prayer for healing of the same condition. A study of CAM usage in rural
 Chiropractic 107

Illinois communities found that 63 percent had tried at least one alternative,
and 90 percent of CAM users combined at least two approaches, among the
most common of which were chiropractic and prayer. Sixty-six percent of
CAM users went to a chiropractor, and 58 percent used “prayer/faith healing.”
In a study of fibromyalgia patients receiving conventional medical therapies at
the Mayo Clinic, 47 percent used chiropractic, and 45 percent used “spiritual
healing (prayers).” Although neither study reported how many subjects used
both chiropractic and prayer or expectations that patients brought to—or took
from—healing encounters, high usage rates of both therapies alongside con-
ventional medicine suggest that many of the same individuals integrated all
of these approaches.30
Despite recent studies evaluating the combination of intercessory
prayer with conventional medicine, scholars have not investigated whether
individuals combine Christian prayer with chiropractic. Such an inquiry
illumines one important point of connection between evangelical and
metaphysical practices, as Americans in pain piece together therapeutic
resources to meet practical needs. Sociological research supports histo-
rian Catherine Albanese’s “impressionistic” finding that evangelicals today
constitute the “backbone” of American metaphysical religion. Indeed,
evangelical backbones have in recent years received regular chiropractic
adjustments.31
In reaching this conclusion, I supplemented a review of CAM studies with
the collection and analysis of new data, gathered from written surveys and
telephone interviews with pentecostals seeking prayer for healing. I designed
and distributed a “Healing Survey” to more than two thousand self-identified
Christians who attended conferences between 2005 and 2009 conducted by an
itinerating pentecostal group in Toronto, Ontario; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;
and St. Louis, Missouri, and traveling as a group to Brazil and Mozambique.
The organization trained and supervised prayer teams who articulated a
shared theology of divine healing: a personal God supernaturally intervenes
in the natural world to heal miraculously, in the name of Jesus of Nazareth,
by the power of the Holy Spirit. Leaders of the pentecostal group singled out
for in-depth study occasionally make passing references to personal visits to
chiropractors within sermons on divine healing.32
The twenty-seven-question pre- and postconference questionnaires asked
subjects to describe any illness, pain, or disability for which they wanted to
receive healing through prayer. Questions inquired about medical and alterna-
tive medical or spiritual remedies that respondents had tried or would consider
and about any healing they believed themselves to have experienced during
the conference through prayer. Question nine on the preconference survey
108 the healing gods

asked, “Other than prayer, have you ever tried alternative medical or spiritual
remedies for healing of this condition? Please circle one or more of the follow-
ing: chiropractic, massage, meditation, acupuncture, herbal, yoga, Reiki, natu-
ropathy, homeopathy, Therapeutic Touch, Christian Science, Native American,
Unity, Santeria, curanderos/as, psychic, other: ________, not sure, none.” The
surveys were returned by 328 North American or European respondents. Of
224 respondents who indicated that they hoped to receive divine healing, 58
(26 percent) reported having visited a chiropractor. In 55 follow-up interviews,
a similar proportion, 20 (36 percent), volunteered that they had received chi-
ropractic adjustments. These percentages are consistent with general surveys
showing 30-percent chiropractic usage rates among Americans experiencing
back pain, suggesting that belief in divine healing makes it neither more nor
less likely that one will visit a chiropractor.33
Christians surveyed voiced general approval of chiropractic as comple-
mentary to prayer for divine healing. Only one person noted that she had
discontinued treatment for religious reasons: “I was struggling with back
pain and was actually seeing a chiropractor rather frequently. And I was just
convicted that I was really having more faith in the chiropractor meeting my
need. . . . I decided I was going to trust the Lord for my healing rather than the
chiropractor and it was when I made that decision that my back pain went
away and I have not been plagued with it since.” This woman indicated that
she had invested such a high level of trust in her chiropractor, whom she saw
“rather frequently,” that she found herself placing less trust in God to heal
her. Another respondent, an Assemblies of God Pentecostal, attested that God
had miraculously healed him of terminal colon cancer seven years before. He
considered medical doctors unproblematic and continued going to them for
“surveillance.” But he wrote “NO” in capital letters several times across the
entire section of the questionnaire that asked about alternatives, implying his
sense that CAM cannot be incorporated within evangelical theology: “No—
God gets all the glory.” This respondent distinguished between medical treat-
ment, which he considered legitimate means through which God can heal,
and CAM, which he saw as pointing to an ultimate source of healing other
than the Christian God.
Many interviewees considered chiropractic more acceptable than other
CAM practices enumerated in the survey. Given an assumptive binary that
practices are either scientific or religious, perceived efficacy in relieving pain
made chiropractic philosophy seem less salient. One individual singled out
chiropractic as the only alternative on the survey that he did not have “enough
reservations about that I’d just as soon not do. Most of the other things would
be called New Age. I’m a Christian and I don’t believe that they’re avenues
 Chiropractic 109

I should pursue. Chiropractic is, I wish I had a better understanding of how

it’s supposed to work, but it seems to work, and I’m willing to try that.” This
individual classified most of CAM as New Age but made an exception for chi-
ropractic—despite feeling uneasy that he lacked understanding of “how it’s
supposed to work”—because it seemed effective. Another respondent reported
having tried acupuncture but stated that she “wouldn’t do that again.” It had
been painful and ineffective, and “I was in a different place in my life back
then, and I am not sure that that is an approved way for a Christian to get
healed.” This woman had a strikingly more positive evaluation of chiroprac-
tic: “I have never been to a chiropractor. I know people who do go and they
say that it helps them a lot. I guess I’ve never been led to do it. I don’t think
that it’s something the church doesn’t approve of. I think it’s perfectly OK.
I just haven’t done it.” In the absence of clerical disapproval and convinced of
its efficacy, this respondent felt comfortable identifying chiropractic as valid.
Another interviewee reasoned: “I think chiropractic is scientific. The manipu-
lations were forceful, and I heard my back crack.” Because he felt and heard
physical effects of adjustments, this individual concluded that chiropractic
should be classified as science rather than religion.
Several respondents evaluated chiropractic as more effective than biomedi-
cine. Individuals who said they disliked going to doctors or could not afford
them reported seeing a chiropractor “from time to time”—often one or more
times per week—for adjustments, whether or not anything seemed “out of
place.” Asked to “circle any/all of the following from which you might seek aid
if you ever need another condition healed: prayer, physician or other health-
care professional, alternative medical or spiritual remedies,” one respondent
circled “prayer” and, tellingly, wrote in “my faithful chiropractor.” Another
respondent expressed a broader willingness to experiment with CAM. She
circled having tried chiropractic, massage, naturopathy, acupuncture, herbal,
and homeopathy and specified that “all my healing has come from alterna-
tive medicine.” At the end of the conference, this woman, having experienced
CAM as therapeutically efficacious, signaled her intention to continue com-
bining CAM with biomedicine and prayer.

Conclusion
After decades of mutual suspicion, chiropractic and Christianity have been
reinterpreted as complementary. This major cultural adjustment occurred as
chiropractic publicists deftly moved back and forth between physical and spiri-
tual vocabularies, attracting clients whose need for healing made them recep-
tive to chiropractic claims. Chiropractors gained approval from conservative
110 the healing gods

Christians who reclassified chiropractic, based on perceived efficacy in reliev-

ing pain, as legitimate science rather than illegitimate New Age religion.
Yet, as the concluding chapter below demonstrates, some patients initially
attracted to chiropractic as science come to internalize chiropractic’s meta-
physical philosophy.
Although interpreted as nonreligious, chiropractic is premised on a vitalis-
tic, harmonial philosophy and fulfills many of the same functions as religion.
More than a medical service, chiropractic helps explain life’s struggles, cope
with present stressors, and anticipate the future with hope. Chiropractic prom-
ises to heal “dis-ease” and meet felt needs of people in pain—for someone to
listen, confirm the legitimacy of complaints, do something to provide relief,
and restore a lost sense of control. Spending up to an hour with patients at
each of frequent appointments, chiropractors do not demand a physiological
cause in order to take pain seriously, the physical reality of which they corrobo-
rate with physical manipulations. Chiropractors win a loyal clientele as they
spend time, in the language of J. Stuart Moore, “touching and listening, vali-
dating the often ambiguous pain associated with back ailments.” Chiropractic
fills a vacuum of meaning with an appealing explanation of pain: something is
simply out of adjustment, and balance can be restored without making either
the hurting person or God morally culpable. The chiropractor takes control
of the situation by doing something actively and by empowering patients
to make lifestyle changes. Patients, who may have heard clergy defer hope
of relief to the afterlife or physicians eradicate hope, gain reassurance that
the situation will improve through ongoing adjustments. The intense loyalty
and defensiveness toward their chiropractors exhibited by several Christians
interviewed, through exclamations such as “I love my chiropractor!” suggest
the tenacity with which they want to protect their means of meeting religious
needs to identify causes, attribute blame, and find significance.34
The vagueness with which chiropractors typically describe adjustments
allows Christian patients to hear what they want, finessing their under-
standings of chiropractic to line up with their theologies. Christians inter-
viewed defend chiropractic because they get something from chiropractors
that they do not get from medical doctors or churches and that most do not
feel authorized to seek from techniques coded as New Age. One interviewee
after another, who felt no need to comment on the religious beliefs of their
medical doctors, volunteered that their chiropractors are Christians. One
individual had taken extensive notes on her chiropractor’s citations of Bible
verses, encouragements to attend a “Bible believing church,” and claims that
he only referred patients to other Christian practitioners. She interpreted his
frequent references to unblocking “nerve energy” as denoting “medical help”
 Chiropractic 111

that restored the body to how “God has set it up.” Another interviewee admit-
ted that she did not have a “good feeling” about going to a chiropractor. Faced
with pain that her doctor had neither alleviated nor taken seriously, she tried
chiropractic. She justified her decision because “everybody at church goes,” an
influential member of her church was a chiropractor, and all of her Christian
friends were “talking about how great they were” and saying “you should go.”
Such respondents reasoned that if chiropractic were un-Christian, so many
Christians would not be promoting it.
Many of the same Christians who insist that “so many chiropractors are
Christians!” do not believe that all people who call themselves Christians really
are. But chiropractors are made less instead of more responsible for proving
their orthodoxy because of the services they offer. The case of chiropractic
illustrates how metaphysical, medical, and evangelical strands of America’s
therapeutic culture intersect where those in need of healing assemble diverse
resources to meet practical needs. Chiropractic’s claim to Christian identity
hinges on perceived efficacy. This leads to the question, addressed in chap-
ter 5, of whether there is conventional scientific evidence that chiropractic or
other CAM approaches are effective.
 5
Does CAM Work, and Is It Safe?

holistic health care’s reputation has never been better. News headlines
reporting breakthroughs in CAM research appear almost daily, suggesting
that scientists are at last finding evidence that the ancients were right all along,
that nature is the best medicine. The era of integrative medicine is upon us,
combining the best of old and new therapies. Conventional health-care pro-
viders who do not offer CAM will soon be in the minority, as there seem to be
ever-receding grounds for questioning CAM’s medical pedigree.
Despite CAM’s rising status as evidence-based medicine, most CAM
approaches lack compelling scientific evidence of efficacy and safety. But the
absence of medical confirmation has not stopped CAM from becoming main-
stream. There are more-than-medical factors that explain the growing percep-
tion that CAM is scientifically validated. Many of the critiques presented in this
chapter can be applied to certain conventional medical practices. Therefore,
the implications extend beyond CAM to interrogate health-care research, mar-
keting, and services more generally. Indeed, the overselling and underdeliv-
ery of conventional medical benefits motivate many patients to overestimate
CAM’s scientific backing.

How Scientists Evaluate Efficacy

Conventional biomedical science restricts explanations of health and disease
to physical or material factors, in contrast with the metaphysical, or beyond
physical, assumptions of religion and spirituality. Although an individual heal-
ing experience may be deeply significant from a religious perspective, scien-
tists concern themselves with systematic study of reproducible phenomena,
while assiduously avoiding the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy that if a person
recovers after receiving some treatment, then the treatment must have aided
recovery.
 Does CAM Work? 113

Clinical studies test whether other factors, including other treatments,

expectations of recovery, or recuperation that would have occurred apart from
any treatment, may account for observed improvements. One way this is done
is to compare results for subjects in an experimental group with those for a
control group. The gold standard of rigorous scientific research is the pro-
spective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT) which rules out as
many potential confounds as possible. Even RCTs that appear to demonstrate
positive effects from a treatment may be artifacts of chance, and for this rea-
son, scientists use statistical tests to weigh relative probabilities that similar
results could have occurred coincidentally. Scientists use repeated observa-
tion and experimentation to decide whether new data falsify theories or are
consistent with them. Meta-analyses, or systematic reviews, of multiple com-
parable and well-designed trials increase confidence that treatments are both
safe and effective. In particular, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
consists of regularly updated systematic reviews that summarize and interpret
cumulative results of medical research. Cochrane reviews are widely accepted
as the best single source of reliable evidence about the positive and negative
effects of health-care interventions. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act of 1938 gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to use
such evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of regulated products. The
FDA does not, however, regulate many CAM interventions that do not claim
to “diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease.”1
Since the 1990s, evidence-based medicine has become a watchword in the
health-care professions. Clinicians increasingly seek to select treatments vali-
dated through population-level studies, although conventional doctors do still
prescribe weakly supported medicines and procedures, some of which pro-
duce serious side effects, including death. The intention of evidence-based
medicine is to minimize use of treatments that lack strong evidence of thera-
peutic benefits. In the process, attention has shifted from explaining mecha-
nisms toward exhibiting effects. Many people, including physicians, consider
it less important to elucidate why treatments work, provided that it can be
shown that treatments work.2
Holistic healers seized on the opening provided by the evidence-based
medicine paradigm to market CAM as treatments that work, even if mecha-
nisms are poorly understood. This has been done by publishing results of
clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals and by using scientific language to
describe CAM. And this is despite the fact that conventional medical technol-
ogy has been unable to confirm the existence, let alone the medical efficacy,
of vital energy, the mechanism by which many CAM therapies are supposed
to work.
114 the healing gods

Journals dedicated to publishing CAM research proliferated by the early

2000s. Before creating new journals, CAM authors had difficulty getting
their articles accepted by conventional medical journal editors and peer
reviewers. This is not merely a product of residual bias against holistic
philosophy. A relatively small percentage of CAM studies are RCTs that
show statistically significant effects. Many studies are “outcome-based” or
“observational.” This means that an effect is observed to follow an inter-
vention, but the conditions of the study were not rigorously controlled, for
instance, by comparing the outcomes for experimental and control groups.
This leaves open the possibility that factors not controlled for, such as a
placebo effect, may account for an apparent correlation between the experi-
mental treatment and observed effects. A systematic review of yoga studies
found that only 40 percent used RCTs, and most of these were less reliable
because they had thirty or fewer subjects. Cochrane reviews of yoga for
anxiety, dementia, ADHD, and epilepsy found “no reliable evidence to sup-
port” the treatment.3
Holistic healers have been able to claim that scientific evidence for CAM is
mounting because of the sheer number of studies published, even though few
studies have been published in top-ranking medical journals or used robust
methods. Mary Ruggie, a sociologist favorably disposed to CAM methods such
as meditation, summarizes that “there is a large and growing literature on
the biology of meditation, and despite the inevitable methodological incon-
sistencies, there is mounting evidence of health benefits.” Imprecise phrases
such as “large and growing” and “mounting evidence” substitute for detailed
evidence. Lack of specificity is problematic, because there are several poten-
tial sources of bias in medical research (whether conventional or CAM)—and
these biases can lead to misinterpretation of the evidence.4
The first potential bias is poor study quality. Numerous studies report
benefits from meditation, but systematic reviews characterize the quality of
research as poor. The University of Massachusetts Center for Mindfulness lists
thirteen publications by Jon Kabat-Zinn and colleagues championing mind-
fulness meditation. The official TM Web site gives a bibliography of more
than six hundred scientific publications. But out of seven Cochrane reviews on
meditation and biofeedback, none found sufficient evidence to recommend
any meditation practice. An NCCAM-commissioned systematic review by the
Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality (AHRQ) made an exhaustive
search of meditation studies, evaluating separately the state of research for
each technique (mantra meditation, mindfulness meditation, yoga, t’ai chi,
and qigong) separately. The AHRQ characterized the 813 meditation studies
as “predominantly poor-quality studies.” Previous meta-analyses that found
 Does CAM Work? 115

reduced blood pressure or other benefits from TM, qigong, and Zen Buddhist
meditation were “based on low-quality studies and small numbers” of sub-
jects. Overall, the AHRQ determined that scientific research on meditation
“is characterized by poor methodological quality.” Consequently, “firm con-
clusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn
based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must
be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analy-
sis and reporting of results.” Nevertheless, lay readers can be expected to pay
more attention to the number of studies reporting benefits than to the quality
of those studies.5
A second potential source of prejudice is known as publication bias or the
file-drawer effect. Researchers are more likely to publish positive results, while
tucking away null results in their file cabinets. Although this is a concern
in every research field, the problem is accentuated in fields in which many
researchers want to show positive effects. Reiki researcher Mike Cantwell
admits to “conducting clinical research in the hope of convincing insurance
companies that complementary care is viable and will save them money.” The
American Holistic Nurses Association claims that “there are numerous stud-
ies that support the efficacy of Reiki” but cites just two. The first, a review
article by Anne Vitale (2007), calls for further research to “establish evidence,”
given substantial problems with the few studies published. The second study
cited, by Nancy Garrison (2005), is a doctoral dissertation completed at Holos
University, a distance-learning school that, according to its Web site, specializes
in “holistic mysticism, spiritual direction, counseling intuition, transforma-
tional psychology and integrative healthcare.” The school’s only accreditation
is from the New Thought Accreditation Commission, a group “dedicated to
global growth of New Thought philosophy.” The “Center for Reiki Research
Including Reiki in Hospitals” (emphasis in original) exists for the purpose
of making a scientific case for the credibility of Reiki. The center’s Web site
lists Reiki studies and concludes that the “strongest evidence that Reiki has a
demonstrable biological effect comes from the carefully controlled studies on
rats by Baldwin and colleagues (2006, 2008).” One of these studies enrolled
a total of three rats; the same rats were first given real Reiki, then sham Reiki.
The other study enrolled sixteen rats, of which four received real Reiki, four
had sham Reiki, and eight were controls. Positive effects were shown in a
total of seven rats between the two studies. This is the “strongest evidence”
of Reiki’s biological effects. It seems plausible that other studies would fail to
find the same effects (in rats, let alone humans); it is even possible that other
studies did fail to find positive effects, but these results were not published.
A 2013 NIH summary of clinical trials of Reiki lists six completed studies (for
116 the healing gods

stress, prostate cancer, fibromyalgia, AIDS, and neuropathy [two]), none of

which lists resultant publications.6
Related to publication bias is citation bias, also known as sampling bias.
The problem is that researchers—intentionally or unintentionally—may
selectively refer to only those studies finding positive effects, while remain-
ing silent about studies that fail to show an effect or indicate that a control
group did better. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a report on
acupuncture in 2002. The report was drafted and revised by a prominent
acupuncture supporter, Zhu-Fan Xie, honorary director of the Institute of
Integrated Medicines in Beijing; U.S. medical acupuncture proponent Joseph
Helms consulted. The report lists twenty-seven “diseases, symptoms or condi-
tions for which acupuncture has been proved—through controlled trials—to
be an effective treatment” and sixty-three “diseases, symptoms or conditions
for which the therapeutic effect of acupuncture has been shown but for which
further proof is needed.” The report concludes that “some of these studies
have provided incontrovertible scientific evidence that acupuncture is more
successful than placebo treatments in certain conditions. For example, the
proportion of chronic pain relieved by acupuncture is generally in the range
55–85 percent, which compares favourably with that of potent drugs (mor-
phine helps in 70 percent of cases) and far outweighs the placebo effect (30–35
percent).” (Confusingly, comparing proportion of pain relieved with percent-
age of cases in which patients claim improvement appears to treat two separate
measures as if they are equivalent.) The WHO report uses strong language to
endorse acupuncture: it is “proved . . . to be an effective treatment,” and there
is “incontrovertible scientific evidence.” Such claims are striking given that
scientists are usually very conservative in using terms such as “proved” and
“incontrovertible,” since additional evidence may disprove apparent effects.
In reaching its verdict, the WHO commission systematically excluded studies
with negative results. This is because

in many published placebo-controlled trials, sham acupuncture was

carried out by needling at incorrect, theoretically irrelevant sites. Such
a control really only offers information about the most effective sites of
needling, not about the specific effects of acupuncture. Positive results
from such trials, which revealed that genuine acupuncture is superior
to sham acupuncture with statistical significance, provide evidence
showing the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment. On the other
hand, negative results from such trials, in which both the genuine and
sham acupuncture showed considerable therapeutic effects with no
significant difference between them, can hardly be taken as evidence
 Does CAM Work? 117

negating the effectiveness of acupuncture. In the latter case, especially

in treatment of pain, most authors could only draw the conclusion that
additional control studies were needed. Therefore, these reports are
generally not included in this review.

This is an extraordinary admission of intentional citation bias. Given the fore-

ordained conclusion that acupuncture is beneficial, the WHO report justifies
excluding from its statistical analysis studies finding that genuine acupunc-
ture is no more effective than sham acupuncture.7
A problem with omitting unwanted data is that it skews statistical
results. In conducting systematic reviews—such as Cochrane reviews or
the WHO report—researchers use statistical analysis to assess efficacy. For
any experimental treatment, a certain number of studies can be expected to
show effectiveness as a random fluke in the data even if there is no effect.
Researchers conclude that treatments are effective when effects are so
strong and frequently observed—even when including studies with nega-
tive results—that it is unlikely that findings are a result of chance. The
question for meta-analytic reviews is not whether there is any study that
reports effects but whether a large enough proportion of studies reveal a
consistent effect. When studies showing no effects are left out of meta-anal-
yses for whatever reason, it tends to make treatments appear more effective
than they are.
In order to evaluate consistency of effects, researchers perform replication
studies, preferably including duplication of results by independent research-
ers. In the case of homeopathy, studies reporting positive effects have been
published in well-respected medical journals. But these studies have gener-
ally not been replicated. Fritz Donner, one of the German physicians commis-
sioned by the Third Reich in the 1930s to demonstrate homeopathy’s benefits,
revealed in 1966 that the Nazi experiments had not been properly placebo-
controlled, since subjects were told when they were given a placebo. When
Donner blinded placebo recipients, effects disappeared. In 1991, the German
pharmacologist Wolfgang Hopff failed to replicate Hahnemann’s original
experiment with cinchona bark.8
One of the most dramatic failures to replicate followed the 1988 publica-
tion of a paper claiming remarkable effects for homeopathy in the flagship
journal Nature. The paper, published by Jacques Benveniste’s lab in France,
reported that very dilute, succussed (i.e., vigorously shaken) solutions of anti-
bodies produced an allergic response in human blood cells. Since the solu-
tions were so dilute (1 x 102 to 1 x 10120) that it was unlikely that any of the
original molecules were present, the authors proposed that “transmission of
118 the healing gods

the biological information could be related to the molecular organization of

water,” a theory dubbed the “memory of water.” Nature’s editors appended a
cautionary note:

Readers of this article may share the incredulity of the many referees
who have commented on several versions of it during the past several
months. The essence of the result is that an aqueous solution of an
antibody retains its ability to evoke a biological response even when
diluted to such an extent that there is a negligible chance of there being
a single molecule in any sample. There is no physical basis for such an
activity. With the kind collaboration of Professor Benveniste, Nature
has therefore arranged for independent investigators to observe rep-
etitions of the experiments. A report of this investigation will appear
shortly.

Nature did dispatch a team of investigators (made up of Nature’s editor-in-

chief John Maddox, professional magician James Randi, and scientific fraud
investigator Walter Stewart), who found that the studies were “ill-controlled”
and failed to exclude “systematic error, including observer bias,” leading to
the verdict that “the claims made by Davenas et al. are not to be believed.” The
researcher who performed much of the work for the experiment, Elisabeth
Davenas, subjectively evaluated which blood cells exhibited a reaction. In the
original experiments, Davenas was not blinded regarding which test tubes
contained the homeopathic dilutions and which were pure water. When inves-
tigators implemented blinding, the effects disappeared.9
The Nature paper inspired numerous studies, most of which also failed to
replicate. A systematic review of 120 related papers concluded that “where a
research team has set out to replicate the work of another, either the results
were negative or the methodology was questionable.” Another systematic
review found that most studies finding “memory of water” effects were of “low
quality,” and the experiments were “performed with inadequate controls or
had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion.” In 2002,
the BBC television program Horizon broadcast its own replication attempt.
Statistician Martin Bland analyzed the results, summarizing that “there’s
absolutely no evidence at all to say that there is any difference” between the
homeopathic and pure water solutions.10
None of this deterred Benveniste, who proclaimed the revolutionary nature
of his discoveries until his death in 2004. In 1997, he founded a company,
DigiBio, to plug the idea that memory of water can be digitized and transmit-
ted by e-mail to affect remote water samples. The DigiBio Web site boasts that
 Does CAM Work? 119

from the first high dilution experiments in 1984 to the present, thou-
sands of experiments have been made, enriching and considerably con-
solidating our initial knowledge. Up to now, we must observe that not a
single flaw has been discovered in these experiments and that no valid
counter-experiments have ever been proposed. . . . The probability that
we are in the presence of an artifact and that our work has been errone-
ous for the past 15 years is diminishing day by day, and we are more and
more convinced that we have brought to light a phenomenon essential
to biology and to life.

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was sufficiently intrigued
that it funded an effort to test DigiBio’s claims; the investigators reported in
2006 that “our team found no replicable effects from digital signals.”11
Researchers in the 1990s and 2000s published hundreds of replication
studies for both classical and digital homeopathy. The Lancet published a sys-
tematic review in 1997 that found homeopathic remedies superior to placebos.
But a follow-up paper by the same authors in 1999 qualified the original ver-
dict by noting that “studies with better methodological quality tended to yield
less positive results. . . . It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least
over-estimated the effects of homeopathic treatments.” A systematic review
of eleven previous systematic reviews concluded in 2002 that “collectively
they failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular,
there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic
treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. . . . The best clinical
evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recom-
mendations for its use in clinical practice.” A 2003 review found “a lack of
conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy,” so it “should not be
substituted for proven therapies.” A 2005 Lancet review of 220 studies allowed
that “there is indeed a positive effect for homeopathy, but it is very small and
entirely compatible with the treatment being a placebo.” Cochrane reviews of
homeopathy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dementia,
asthma, influenza, induction of labor, and hot flashes all found insufficient
evidence to recommend homeopathy. Even the generally pro-CAM NCCAM
admits that there is “little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective
treatment for any specific condition” and that its “key concepts are not con-
sistent with the current understanding of science.” Judged by the replication
standard, homeopathy—one of the most-researched CAM therapies—has not
been shown to produce replicable effects.12
An apparent exception to the lack of scientific evidence for homeopathy
is “Zincum 3x.” A 2011 Cochrane review concludes that zinc “reduces the
120 the healing gods

duration and severity of the common cold.” Zinc lozenges are marketed by
conventional pharmacies—Walmart sells a generic “Equate” version—as an
“All-Natural Homeopathic” remedy. Although the lozenges are 99.8 percent
sugar, they include enough ionic zinc—13.3 milligrams—to provide a thera-
peutic dose. Calling the lozenges homeopathic boosts sales, given popular
fascination with homeopathy, and implies that other products that share the
homeopathic label—whether or not they include enough of a clinically vali-
dated substance to produce any effect—are also therapeutic (see figure 5.1).13

Patterns in Presenting CAM Research

Given a lack of scientific support for many CAM therapies, promoters devel-
oped strategies for presenting research in the best possible light. For address-
ing popular audiences, scientific-sounding language may be sufficient to
communicate that CAM is scientific. Homeopathy product labels look a lot
like allopathic medicine labels. Each lists symptoms or conditions for which
the remedy should be taken, specifies dosages that vary depending on age, and
provides instructions for how and when to administer, including whether it
should be with food. A sign prominently posted in the Boulder, Colorado, flag-
ship of the Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy chain describes homeopathy as a
“non-toxic system of medicine” that is “practiced by licensed physicians and
other qualified prescribers,” such as Pharmaca’s “certified” staff of “creden-
tialed” pharmacists, naturopathic “doctors,” nutritionists, and herbalists who
base prescriptions on two hundred years of “research studies known as ‘prov-
ings’ as well as documented clinical cases and recent scientific trials.” Rather
than explain homeopathy’s vitalistic premises, the sign narrowly defines the
“law of similars” as a medical concept that “since exposure to a substance can
cause specific symptoms in a healthy person, the substance, when correctly
prepared as a homeopathic remedy, can stimulate the body’s curative pow-
ers to overcome similar symptoms during illness.” Alternative Healing: The
Complete A-Z Guide to Over 160 Different Alternative Therapies (1993) uses mul-
tisyllable words to describe the “law of infinitesimals” as “infinitesimal break-
down of the active ingredients, permitting ready diffusion and assimilation,
thereby enhancing their therapeutic effectiveness.” So rendered, homeopathy
is like allopathic medicine because it is based on scientific research but unlike
allopathic medicine because it is nontoxic.14
In conjecturing how homeopathy might work, the language of quantum
physics blurs the distinction between physics and metaphysics. A Nurse’s
Handbook of Alternative & Complementary Therapies (2003) suggests that the
“active ingredient leaves an electromagnetic ‘imprint’ in the water molecules”
 Does CAM Work? 121

figure 5.1 Homeopathic zinc lozenges for sale at Walmart, 2012, (a) front,
(b) back. (Photographs by author)

that can be detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Jeanette Winterson

(a novelist, whose official biography does not mention scientific training) uses
the mystique of quantum physics to argue that “recent discoveries in the world
of the very small point to a whole new set of rules for the behaviour of nano-
quantities. . . . Splitting the atom allowed inconceivable amounts of energy to
be released. . . . In water, nano particles can remain suspended, neither float-
ing nor sinking, but permeating the solution. Such particles are also able to
pass through cell walls, and they can cause biochemical change.” A “Graphic
122 the healing gods

Representation of the Workings of Homeopathy” (2006) follows “the lead of

quantum physics” to “develop a scientific underpinning of homeopathy.” In
this model, “the Vital Force of a patient is represented as a synchronous sine
wave; miasmatic contagions [i.e., blocks to health] are similarly represented,
and the intersections and relative influences of the two waves upon each other
provide a graphical illustration of the disease state.” The authors present the
metaphysical concepts of vital force and miasmatic contagions as science by
plotting them on a graph.15
Popular descriptions of CAM capitalize on fascination with, and fears of,
scientific medicine. Aromatherapy—an industry that grossed $300 million in
1998—is denoted as scientific by telling an empirical origins story. The French
chemist Rene-Maurice Gattefosse coined the term aromatherapy in 1937, after
allegedly discovering the healing properties of oil of lavender when he plunged
his burned hand into a nearby beaker. A handbook on Aromatherapy (1991)
vaunts the “medicinal use of natural plant compounds, exactly as do the con-
ventional medicines,” but without the side effects of synthetic drugs. The text
alludes to findings “from chemical analysis and from chromatography” that
indicate the oils’ “therapeutic and olfactory qualities,” although the book does
not specify what this research demonstrates. Cochrane reviews of aromatherapy
for dementia and labor pains reached no “firm conclusions” or found “no dif-
ference” between experimental and control groups. A manual on Aromatherapy
for Health Professionals (2007) describes how essential oils are absorbed into the
skin through massage, inhalation, baths, steamers, compresses, creams, and
lotions, while leaving unanswered the question of why oils might be beneficial.
The term essential confers scientific legitimacy by implying that oils carry nutri-
ents essential to life, much like essential vitamins and minerals, although the
FDA has not confirmed that essential oils have nutritional value (see figure 5.2).
Simultaneously, the label essential evokes an ancient, less dangerous world.
Promoters trace “pure essential oils” to the “Ancient Egyptians,” Romans,
and Greeks. Playing on fears generated by modern epidemics, The Practice of
Aromatherapy (1990) alleges that Hippocrates stemmed the spread of plague in
Athens by fumigating the city with aromatic essences but says nothing about
the empirically demonstrated effectiveness of vaccines. Instead, the text exploits
popular associations between contamination by disease-causing organisms and
contamination by “toxic” chemicals of conventional medicines.16
Advocates for CAM sometimes make claims of scientific validation that
exceed the evidence. Therapeutic Touch is reputedly based on “research find-
ings,” showing improved hemoglobin levels, pain reduction, accelerated heal-
ing, and faster growth of plants after using one’s hands to redirect energy
fields. Critics challenged the methodology of these studies for small, uneven
 Does CAM Work? 123

figure 5.2 “100% guaranteed pure therapeutic grade essential oils” in Whole
Foods aromatherapy section, 2011. (Photograph by author)

sample sizes; self-selection of subjects; the sole, undefined inclusion criteria

that subjects be “self-actualized”; failure to account for intervening variables
or differences between study groups; and improper use of the t-test statistic.
An experiment designed by a nine-year-old science-fair entrant and published
in the flagship Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 concluded
that Therapeutic Touch practitioners were no more accurate than chance in
detecting the presence of a human energy field. Even Therapeutic Touch pro-
ponent Thérèse Meehan admits that replication studies found “no significant
relationship” with hemoglobin levels and that patients may report improve-
ments as a result of “implicit and explicit . . . suggestion by the nurse adminis-
tering the intervention.” A study of dementia patients indicated no significant
difference for real versus placebo treatments, although both groups exhibited
less disruptive behavior than patients receiving no treatment, possibly because
the experimental groups benefited from heightened interaction with caregiv-
ers. A systematic review summarized that out of eleven controlled studies of
Therapeutic Touch, seven reported positive outcomes, three found no effect,
and in one study the control group performed better.17
Therapeutic Touch is presented as a medical practice backed by scien-
tific research by putting a positive spin on relatively weak results. One study
124 the healing gods

claiming that Therapeutic Touch reduces the number of suppressor T cells

(reflecting improved immune-system function) among the bereaved had a
subject pool of four patients and two nurses; the study did not specify how
much time elapsed between pre- and posttreatment evaluation, nor did it
discuss possible intervening variables during the two-week study period,
raising questions about the cause of observed improvements. The NCCAM
notes the positive findings of “many small studies . . . in a wide variety of con-
ditions, including wound healing [i.e., Wirth], osteoarthritis, migraine head-
aches, and anxiety in burn patients.” The one cited study by Daniel Wirth—a
lawyer without a research degree, employed by an entity, Healing Sciences
International, that markets energy medicine—appeared in Subtle Energies,
a journal published by an advocacy group, the International Society for the
Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine. Wirth subsequently published
(in a different journal) a replication study in which he found that subjects
receiving Therapeutic Touch recovered more slowly than did those in the con-
trol group.18
When studies fail to show positive effects, supporters may redefine the pur-
pose of an intervention or reject the value of scientific study. A textbook on The
Theory and Practice of Therapeutic Touch (2001) maintains that even if the prac-
tice does not “help sick people recover,” it is beneficial for “comfort, relaxation,
and sense of wellbeing and acceptance.” When nurse Janet Quinn failed to dem-
onstrate that coronary patients did better with real Therapeutic Touch than they
did with a sham version, she finessed the findings by rejecting the adequacy
of scientific standards of evaluation, since “Therapeutic Touch continues to be
experienced clinically as a uniquely rich and powerful mode of helping/heal-
ing. . . . There is a need to be cautious and sensitive in conducting this scientific
study lest, like the butterfly that is pinned down for closer inspection, the phe-
nomenon is destroyed in the attempt to understand it.” Quinn does not specify
how empirical study might destroy a practice marketed as energy medicine.19
In discussing the state of CAM research, advocates often imply, rather than
directly claim, efficacy. This may be done through bullet-point lists of condi-
tions for which a treatment is commonly used or that might potentially be
improved by a treatment. The NCCAM specifies that “Reiki has been used by
people with anxiety, chronic pain, HIV/AIDS, and other health conditions, as
well as by people recovering from surgery or experiencing side effects from
cancer treatments.” The inference is that patients would not use therapies for
particular conditions unless they were experiencing benefits.20
Another way to imply efficacy is through lists of in-progress studies and
potential benefits. The National Cancer Institute Web site glosses the question
of efficacy by noting that yoga is “being studied as a way to relieve stress and
 Does CAM Work? 125

treat sleep problems in cancer patients.” Presumably, researchers would not

be conducting studies if there were not already some evidence for yoga. There
is, ostensibly, not more evidence because “additional research is needed.” In a
2008 fact sheet on “Yoga for Health,” the NCCAM provides a bullet-point list,
headed “Research suggests that yoga might” [emphasis added]:

Improve mood and sense of well-being

Counteract stress
Reduce heart rate and blood pressure
Increase lung capacity
Improve muscle relaxation and body composition
Help with conditions such as anxiety, depression, and insomnia
Improve overall physical fitness, strength, and flexibility
Positively affect levels of certain brain or blood chemicals

Although hinting that yoga has been shown to produce the enumerated bene-
fits, the NCCAM concedes that “more well-designed studies are needed before
definitive conclusions can be drawn about yoga’s use for specific health condi-
tions.” Since additional research may potentially confirm a therapy’s benefits
(although more research may instead falsify apparent effects), the implication
is that further research will likely support yoga. A 2012 revision of the fact
sheet—updated in light of completed studies—strikes a more moderate tone,
adding a parenthetical note that “other forms of regular exercise” may produce
the same benefits as yoga, “some research suggests yoga may not improve
asthma,” and arthritis studies are “inconclusive.”21
Those wishing to authenticate CAM imply a biological basis by describing
anatomical structures and physiological processes purportedly affected. The
NCCAM proposes that meditation “might work” by “reducing activity in the
sympathetic nervous system and increasing activity in the parasympathetic
nervous system,” which together control heartbeat, sweating, breathing, and
digestion; the NCCAM adds plausibility by detailing that the sympathetic
nervous system causes the “fight-or-flight response” in which “heart rate and
breathing go up,” “blood vessels narrow,” and “muscles tighten,” whereas
the parasympathetic nervous system causes the opposite “rest and digest”
responses. Other promotional materials include names of chemicals, such as
endorphins and cortisol, that may be mobilized.22
Clinical-sounding descriptions of procedures, including quantification of
distances at which treatments are given and durations and frequency, con-
note medical value. The NCCAM provides a detailed description of how Reiki
is administered: “The client lies down or sits comfortably, fully clothed. The
126 the healing gods

practitioner’s hands are placed lightly on or just above the client’s body, palms
down, using a series of 12 to 15 different hand positions. Each position is held
for about 2 to 5 minutes, or until the practitioner feels that the flow of energy—
experienced as sensations such as heat or tingling in the hands—has slowed
or stopped. The number of sessions depends on the health needs of the client.
Typically, the practitioner delivers at least four sessions of 30 to 90 minutes
each.” So described, Reiki sounds like other medical procedures. Similarly, a
Nurse’s Handbook specifies that the “charge” of a psychically “programmed”
crystal lasts “up to 28 days.” Crystals influence the “etheric layer, located 2”
to 4” (5 to 10 cm) from the body and just outside our visual range.” Exact
numerical values—with the added precision of metric equivalents—imply
that forces that can be measured and quantified are real. The handbook adds
the detail that “healthy chakras” spin in a clockwise direction in the northern
hemisphere but counterclockwise south of the equator. By implication, subtle
energy behaves in predictable ways that correspond with behavior of known
physical forces, in this case the Coriolis force. (In point of fact, cyclones spin
clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern
hemisphere. Drain water does not, contrary to myth, exhibit this effect.)23
Proponents sometimes claim that CAM should be offered to patients based
on health benefits not unique to CAM. Authors may, as a first step, show a cor-
relation between emotional states and health; the next step is to demonstrate
that people who receive CAM report improved emotional states; this justifies
the conclusion that CAM should be used because it may enhance health via
the emotions. The NCCAM observes that people use meditation for “Anxiety,
Pain, Depression, Mood and self-esteem problems, Stress, Insomnia, Physical
or emotional symptoms that may be associated with chronic illnesses and
their treatment, such as: Cardiovascular (heart) disease, HIV/AIDS, Cancer.”
If emotions affect chronic illnesses, it follows that treatments that act on the
emotions affect health. In one study of t’ai chi, researchers administered a
health survey to thirty college students. Subjects self-reported better physi-
cal and mental health after participating in a three-month t’ai chi program;
there was no control group, blinding, or randomization. Higher posttest sur-
vey scores may reflect expectation that t’ai chi would improve health, espe-
cially since all subjects were enrolled in a university course on “Tai Chi—A
Philosophy for Health and a Therapeutic Exercise,” and most were graduate
students preparing for careers in physical therapy. The authors recommend
that “colleges/universities might consider offering Tai Chi as a component of
their ongoing physical activity programs available to students,” a far-reaching
conclusion, given that the study did not show t’ai chi to be any more beneficial
to physical and mental health than other activities.24
 Does CAM Work? 127

A similar line of reasoning begins with the observation that relaxation and
exercise promote health; CAM provides relaxation and exercise; therefore,
CAM should be integrated into patient care. The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Amit Sood
marvels at the “literal rewiring of the brain by our recurring thought patterns
and experiences.” Since meditation turns thought patterns in a more relaxed
direction, Sood reasons that people should meditate. Yet meditation is not
unique in its potential to train the brain; comparable effects are reported in
studies of adult learning, prayer, exercise, music, and even eating a nutritious
meal. There are many ways besides CAM in which people can experience posi-
tive emotions, relaxation, and exercise.25
Notably few studies use control groups to compare CAM with nonmeta-
physical practices that provide similar emotional, relaxation, and exercise con-
tent. A study of carpal tunnel syndrome published in JAMA compared patients
who added yoga to their medical regimens with those who received standard
medical treatment and found that yoga patients fared better. But the study did
not ask whether yoga is more effective than other forms of relaxation or exer-
cise. Controlled studies of t’ai chi typically compare an experimental group
that practices t’ai chi with a control group that either receives health education
or does not engage in any form of exercise. An NIH-funded study found that
older Americans who took t’ai chi lessons demonstrated more immune resis-
tance to shingles than those given health counseling. A study of chronic heart
failure compared patients who did t’ai chi with those who did not exercise at
all and found that t’ai chi positively affected quality of life and exercise capac-
ity; the authors conceded that “in patients with comparable disease severity,
similar changes in exercise tolerance have been seen with conventional [exer-
cise] training.” Such studies corroborate the value of physical exercise, which
has long been established in conventional medical literature.26
Systematic reviews do not indicate that t’ai chi is better than other forms
of exercise. A 2004 systematic review of forty-seven studies of patients with
chronic conditions did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that t’ai chi
produces more benefits than other exercise. A 2008 review article reported
that “tai chi exercise may reduce BP [blood pressure]” but also found that
some studies showing positive effects from t’ai chi indicated “no difference
when compared with conventional exercise.” The only Cochrane review spe-
cific to t’ai chi, on rheumatoid arthritis, found in 2004 that “the studies were
not high quality” and t’ai chi had “no clinically important or statistically sig-
nificant effect on most outcomes of disease activity.” One of the four studies
analyzed compared t’ai chi with participation in “traditional ROM exercise/
rest programs” and found that t’ai chi subjects had improved range of motion
and “reported a significantly higher level of participation in and enjoyment of
128 the healing gods

exercise”; in two studies that used no-exercise control groups, “people’s abil-
ity to do daily chores, the tenderness in their joints, the number of swollen
joints they had and the strength of their grip [were] about the same whether
they did Tai Chi or not,” but one-third of t’ai chi subjects complained of sore-
ness. A 2009 Cochrane review of “Interventions for Preventing Falls in Older
People” concluded that “exercising in supervised groups, participating in Tai
Chi, and carrying out individually prescribed exercise programs at home are
all effective.” Such evidence does not demonstrate the superiority of one form
of exercise over another.27
Endorsements of CAM over other exercise blur medical and metaphysical
rationales. T’ai chi is widely vaunted as a form of exercise that is so “gentle”
and “balancing” that it seems especially well suited to the elderly. The Mayo
Clinic includes t’ai chi on its “Top 10” list of best alternatives because it pro-
motes “stress reduction, greater balance and increased flexibility—especially
for older adults,” using movements that are so “gentle, it has virtually no nega-
tive side effects.” The word gentle conveys that risk of injury is minimal. The
word balance bridges physiological and philosophical concepts. The vestibu-
lar system regulates the body’s sense of balance, preventing falls among the
elderly. T’ai chi, according to the NCCAM, maintains a “healthy balance of
yin and yang, thereby aiding the flow of qi.” The statement hints that ener-
getic balance aids physical balance. A 2004 review of vestibulopathic postural
control studies describes t’ai chi as a technique to “‘balance the flow of ch’i
(life force).” The authors suggest that t’ai chi may benefit elderly patients with
balance impairments because the “concept of balance is at the heart of the
yin-yang, or tai chi symbol.” Although the review found “few data” to “support
the contention that Tai Chi specifically targets the impairments, functional
limitations, disability, and QOL [quality of life] associated with peripheral ves-
tibulopathy,” the authors assert that there are “compelling reasons to further
investigate Tai Chi”—reasons that appear to have less to do with scientific data
than with yin-yang philosophy.28

The Evidence for CAM

There is scientific evidence that certain practices labeled as CAM benefit
health. The clearest case is for eating a healthier diet (coupled with physical
exercise). Studies show correlations between diet and obesity and between
obesity and serious disease, including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.
The WHO has declared obesity a “global epidemic.” In the United States,
two of three adults and one of three children are overweight. The grow-
ing problem of obesity has been correlated with increased consumption of
 Does CAM Work? 129

animal and processed foods and decreased consumption of whole grains

and produce. U.S. Department of Agriculture surveys conducted between
1910 and 1976 indicate dramatic dietary shifts in per capita consumption
of plant and animal foods. For instance, consumption of beef rose 72 per-
cent, poultry 194 percent, and cheese 322 percent, while consumption of
fresh vegetables fell 23 percent, wheat 48 percent, and legumes 46 percent.
Total per capita annual meat consumption increased from 120 pounds in
the early 1900s to 222 pounds in 2007, and total per capita annual dairy
consumption rose from 294 pounds in 1909 to 605 pounds in 2006. The
National Academy of Sciences issued a report on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer
(1982) that called for reduced consumption of fat and increased consump-
tion of whole grains, vegetables, and fruit. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas
M. Campbell’s best-seller, The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet,
Weight Loss and Long-term Health (2006), argues that animal foods are prob-
lematic not only because of their high fat content but also because animal
proteins (but not plant proteins) feed cancer growth. Consumption of dairy
foods increases production of a hormone, insulin-like growth factor, linked
with breast and prostate cancers. The Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine proposed in 1992 the “New Four Food Groups”: whole grains, veg-
etables, fruits, and legumes. Conventional medical backers of a whole-food,
plant-based diet were featured in a 2011 documentary film, Forks over Knives,
whose title implies a choice between healthy eating and the need for surgical
intervention.29
Conventional dietary recommendations have shifted from touting the
nutritional density of meat and dairy toward emphasizing benefits of unpro-
cessed plant foods. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics conducted a
review of the medical literature in 2009, concluding that “vegetarian diets,
including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate,
and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain
diseases”; in particular, “vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and
lower overall cancer rates.” The American Cancer Society (ACS) estimates that
roughly one-third of cancer deaths result from poor nutrition and physical
inactivity. An ACS report issued in 2012 advises a “mostly plant-based diet that
limits red and processed meats and emphasizes a variety of vegetables, fruits,
and whole grains.” The ACS defends “properly planned” macrobiotic diets but
warns that “eating only brown rice and water has been linked to severe nutri-
tional deficiencies and even death.” The ACS likewise confirms that “some
ideas put forth as part of the Gerson regimen, such as eating large amounts
of fruits and vegetables and limiting fat intake, can be part of a healthy diet if
not taken to the extreme” but warns that coffee enemas and liver extracts pose
130 the healing gods

serious risks. The ACS emphasizes the lack of medical evidence that macrobi-
otic or Gerson regimens prevent or cure cancer.30
There is evidence for the value of certain nutritional supplements. Lest
one suspect that Cochrane reviews inevitably fail to find sufficient evidence to
recommend any therapy, Cochrane reviews conclude that cranberries prevent
urinary tract infections and Saint-John’s-wort reduces depression. Individual
studies report that omega-3 oils improve cardiovascular health, flaxseed and
curcumin (active ingredient in turmeric) inhibit cancer growth, and fish oil
helps cancer patients maintain weight. By contrast, studies show that antioxi-
dants, selenium, and thyroid either do not reduce cancer risk or cause side
effects such as severe bleeding.31
There is limited medical evidence favoring physical manipulations such
as massage or chiropractic. A 2008 Cochrane review of massage for low-back
pain concluded that “massage might be beneficial for patients with subacute
and chronic non-specific low-back pain, especially when combined with exer-
cises and education,” but “more studies are needed.” A systematic review of
systematic reviews of chiropractic published in 2006 evaluated spinal manip-
ulation for back and neck pain, headache, nonspinal pain, dysmenorrhea,
infantile colic, asthma, allergy, and dizziness. The review found that “collec-
tively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective
intervention for any condition.” In the case of back pain, “spinal manipulation
was considered superior to sham manipulation but not better than conven-
tional treatments. . . . Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does
not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment.” A 2010
Cochrane review assessed combinations of spinal adjustments with massage,
exercise, and nutritional advice in treating low-back pain. The review indicated
that “while combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and
disability in the short term and pain in the medium term for acute and sub-
acute low-back pain, there is currently no evidence to support or refute that
combined chiropractic interventions provide a clinically meaningful advan-
tage over other treatments for pain or disability in people with low-back pain.
Any demonstrated differences were small and were only seen in studies with
high risk of bias.” A 2011 Cochrane review did not find spinal manipulation to
be more effective than other treatments for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane
reviews for dysmenorrhea, carpal tunnel syndrome, asthma, and nocturnal
enuresis (bedwetting) found insufficient evidence to endorse spinal manip-
ulation. In sum, massage and chiropractic may offer relief from back pain,
but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that these CAM approaches are
effective for other conditions or even that they are more effective than other
therapeutic options for back pain.32
 Does CAM Work? 131

The Safety of CAM

By definition, CAM treatments lack sufficient conventional scientific evi-
dence of efficacy and/or safety to be included in standard treatment proto-
cols. But from the perspective of patients in pain or diagnosed with serious
diseases such as cancer that conventional medicine may not be able to cure,
CAM offers hope. As long as CAM has not been conclusively disproven to
provide benefits, the possibility remains that CAM may work and eventually
prove conventional authorities wrong. Federal regulations prohibit U.S. doc-
tors from prescribing certain CAM therapies—including Cancell, Essiac, and
Laetrile—as cancer treatments. But in a free market, consumers can purchase
even questionable products.33
Since patients do use CAM, physicians and government agencies classify
CAM options as those that might be reasonably recommended, accepted, or
discouraged. The Annals of Internal Medicine, with the NCCAM, published
a guide for clinicians in 2002. Recommended treatments include exercise,
acupuncture and massage for symptom relief, and vitamin E for latent pros-
tate cancer. Among acceptable approaches are reduced-fat and macrobiotic
diets, soy for prostate cancer, vitamin E, shark cartilage, mind-body thera-
pies, acupuncture, and massage. The guide discourages high-dose vitamin
A or C; restrictive diets; anticoagulant supplements, acupuncture, or forceful
massage if there is bleeding; antioxidants and Saint-John’s-wort concurrent
with chemotherapy or radiation; and Essiac, ginseng, macrobiotics, or supple-
ments high in phytoestrogens for breast cancer. The FDA Web site lists “187
Fake Cancer ‘Cures’ Consumers Should Avoid,” including Essiac, Protocel/
Cantron, shark cartilage, and flaxseed oil.34
Conventional medical assessments of CAM anticancer therapies range
from unproven to implausible to dangerous. Shark cartilage has not been
shown to fight cancer, but the NCCAM deems it acceptable because “adverse
effects generally seem to be minor.” The NCI determined Cancell/Cantron/
Protocel to be “a mixture of common chemicals, none of which is known
to be effective in treating any type of cancer.” Although mistletoe/Iscador
is commonly prescribed in Germany and France, the NCI and the ACS do
not recommend it. A 2008 Cochrane review found evidence for mistletoe to
be “weak,” allowing that it “may offer benefits on measures of QOL [qual-
ity of life].” Electronically charged foot baths—marketed under names such
as Aqua Detox—purportedly “detoxify” cancer patients, evidenced by turning
the water brown or orange. British psychiatrist Ben Goldacre, author of the
best-seller Bad Science (2008), explains the color change as a “simple electro-
chemical reaction which rusts the iron contacts on the side of the footbath.”
132 the healing gods

When Goldacre tested water from an Aqua Detox treatment, it turned brown,
and the iron content increased by a factor of fifty, but the posttreatment water
did not contain any identifiable toxins. Goldacre next gave a Barbie doll a foot
bath; Barbie must have needed detox, since she, too, turned the water brown.35
Certain CAM therapies generate not scorn but alarm among conven-
tional doctors. Concerns are twofold: first, that patients will refuse or delay
conventional treatments while pursuing ineffective therapies, sometimes
waiting so long that otherwise treatable conditions result in death; second,
that CAM treatments may be not just ineffective but harmful. Essiac/Flor
Essence has been so popular among consumers that the FDA, the ACS,
the NCI, Canadian medical authorities, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center have all evaluated it, without finding evidence of efficacy; con-
versely, studies show that Essiac accelerates cancer growth (see figure 5.3).
Laetrile, the trade name for a synthetic substance similar to amygdalin
in apricot pits, was assessed by the ACS, the NCI, the California Cancer
Commission, and a Cochrane review, none of which found benefits. Mild
to severe side effects include nausea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, and
death from cyanide poisoning. Clinical studies of coffee enemas and colonic
irrigation report electrolyte imbalance, dehydration, constipation, colitis

figure 5.3 Flor Essence sold alongside an array of “cleanse” treatments at

Whole Foods, 2011. (Photograph by author)
 Does CAM Work? 133

(inflammation), polymicrobial enteric septicemia (infection), rectal perfora-

tion, burns, heart failure, and death.36
Conventional doctors worry that CAM practitioners may not inform
patients of risks. A 2005 survey found that only 23 percent of chiropractors
always discuss serious risks with patients before treatment. Adverse effects
include headache, stiffness, discomfort, fatigue, disk herniation, vertebro-
basilar accidents (dissection of a vertebral artery, which may lead to stroke),
and cauda equina syndrome (nerve compression, which may cause paralysis).
Chiropractors are also more likely than medical doctors to administer routine
X-rays, and research links X-rays with increased cancer risk.37
Yoga is widely regarded as a safe, gentle form of exercise suitable for almost
any person, and possibly one’s pets. A college yoga textbook asserts that “it is
rare for people to injure themselves while under the tutelage of good yoga
instruction.” Internationally renowned Swami Gitananda Giri proclaims that
“real yoga is as safe as mother’s milk.” Conventional medical journals, such as
the British Medical Journal and JAMA, have, however, found serious injuries,
including death from stroke. Although most yoga injuries are never reported,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission cited seven thousand yoga-related
medical visits in 2010.38
Although many instructors tout yoga’s safety, some yoga proponents warn
of physical, psychological, and spiritual risks. Swami Swatmarama, of Yoga
Vidya Gurukul University, cautions that performing pranayama in hatha yoga
awakens kundalini energy rapidly: “But if one is not prepared to take on this
high level energy awakening then this may have negative effects on mind and
body.” Swami Narayanananda is more specific about what negative effects
might entail: “if a person does not know how to check the currents and to
bring down the partly risen kundalini shakti to safer centers, one suffers ter-
ribly and it may ruin the whole life of a person or lead one to insanity. This is
why we see many become insane, many get brain defects, and many others
get some incurable diseases after deep sorrow.” In 1978, psychiatrist Stanislov
Grof and his wife, Christina, founded the Spiritual Emergence Network
(SEN) after Christina experienced a “Spontaneous Kundalini Awakening.”
The SEN reported in 1988 that 24 percent of “spiritual emergency” phone
calls it received had been occasioned by distressing kundalini experiences that
resembled psychotic episodes.39
Clinical studies of TM report psychiatric hospitalization and attempted
suicide, in addition to anxiety, confusion, depression, and antisocial behavior.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia awarded plaintiff Robert
Kropinski $138,000 to pay for psychiatric treatment following eleven years
of TM involvement. The case is instructive for the issues it raises, although
134 the healing gods

the judgment was overturned on appeal. The original jury held that the TM
movement “defrauded” the plaintiff with “false promises of mental bliss and
neglected to warn him about the possibility of adverse side effects.” Implicitly,
Kropinski might not have decided to practice TM had he been informed that it
could trigger a “pathological state.” Former Maharishi University legal coun-
sel and professor of law and economics Anthony D. DeNaro submitted an
affidavit during the Kropinski trial charging that

A disturbing denial or avoidance syndrome, and even outright lies and

deception, are used to cover-up or sanitize the dangerous reality on cam-
pus of very serious nervous breakdowns, episodes of dangerous and
bizarre behavior, suicidal and homicidal ideation, threats and attempts,
psychotic episodes, crime, depression and manic behavior that often
accompanied roundings (intensive group meditations with brainwash-
ing techniques). . . . The consequences of intensive, or even regular,
meditation [were] so damaging and disruptive to the nervous system,
that students could not enroll in, or continue with, regular academic
programs. . . . [The Maharishi] was aware, apparently for some time, of
the problem . . . but his general attitude was to leave it alone or conceal it
because the community would lose faith in the TM movement.

DeNaro claimed, moreover, that the TM organization was “so deeply immersed
in a systematic, willful pattern of fraud including tax fraud . . . designed, in
part, to misrepresent the TM movement as a science (not as a cult), and fraud-
ulently claim and obtain tax exempt status with the IRS” that he felt ethically
obligated to resign from his position at the university.40
The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) has since 1994 used the diagnostic code
“Religious or Spiritual Problem” to label adverse reactions to practices such
as yoga and meditation. The code is intended to avoid unnecessary medica-
tion for apparently psychotic behavior when a more conservative approach
is available. Jack Kornfield, a clinical psychologist who founded the Buddhist
Insight Meditation Society, discusses conservative treatment options for what
he describes as the “perils” of “spiritual life.” For instance, one “overzealous
young karate student” spent a day and a night meditating without moving
or sleeping. When he did get up, the young man had built up such “explo-
sive energy” that he stormed into a room of one hundred silent karate retreat
attendants to exhibit his karate movements “at triple speed” and yell, “When
I look at each of you, I see behind you a whole trail of bodies showing your
past lives.” Kornfield recognized this behavior as a side effect of excessive
 Does CAM Work? 135

meditation. He prescribed replacing meditating with jogging ten miles morn-

ing and afternoon, frequent hot baths and showers, digging in the garden, and
consumption of red meat for its “grounding effect.”41
Despite such reports, CAM’s safety is generally assumed, and provid-
ers contribute to this perception. The Nurse’s Handbook affirms that homeo-
pathic remedies can be regarded as “safe” because the FDA regulates them,
and most are sold over the counter. The cited exception is that “high-potency
compounds that are intended for serious conditions must be dispensed by a
licensed practitioner.” The exclusion likely reflects the FDA’s concern to dis-
courage those diagnosed with serious diseases from replacing medical super-
vision with self-prescribed treatments. But it is interesting that the Nurse’s
Handbook (following homeopathic convention) describes the regulated rem-
edies as “high-potency compounds,” given that there is an inverse relationship
between concentration and presumed potency. In other words, homeopaths
consider the most dilute remedies to have the highest potency and to be least
reliably safe. This makes sense if the “potency” referred to is spiritual rather
than chemical, an interpretation supported by the Nurse’s Handbook’s obser-
vation that “homeopathic practitioners believe in a vital spiritual force.” By
implication, spiritual forces may not always be safe.42
Both consumers and health-care providers have become increasingly
aware of risks of natural substances such as herbs, especially when com-
bined with prescription drugs. Acupuncturist Brian Carter acknowledges that
“herbal medicine is powerful and dangerous.” One of the reasons given by Carter
is that every individual has a distinctive “yin-yang constitution,” so herbs that
bring one person into spiritual “balance” disrupt another person’s balance.
This reasoning suggests that natural substances can be dangerous for spiri-
tual reasons. Holistic approaches that presume the power of spiritual energy
to benefit health entail concepts of risk that expand beyond known biomedi-
cal properties. Analogous to harmful drug interactions, holistic philosophy
implies potential for adverse spiritual interactions. For instance, combining
energies involved in yoga and pentecostal healing practices could theoretically
produce unwanted side effects.43
If vital spiritual energy exists, very little is known about it. It cannot be
assumed that spiritual energy is wholly benign and that its manipulation is
free from risks. Evidence from evolutionary biology indicates that physical
processes are often vicious rather than benevolent. It is reasonable to expect
that if “spiritual” processes are real, they may behave in a manner comparable
to physical processes. Biofeedback founders Elmer and Alyce Green have cau-
tioned since the 1970s that “the physical frontiers of our planet have presented
many dangers to humans; can it be safely assumed that the inner frontier
136 the healing gods

has no corresponding perils?” Whether considered from the “traditional psy-

chological point of view or from the parapsychological point of view, there is
risk involved for students.” The Greens cite examples of commercial mind-
training programs and hypnosis leading to paranoid neuroses, psychosis, and
“astral entities” apparently controlling behavior.44
Although holistic healers often proclaim the inherent safety of energy
work, they do sometimes caution that directing spiritual energy may not be
risk-free. Reiki master Peggy Jentoft stresses that “an underlying principle of
Reiki is that it can do no harm and cannot be used for any harmful purpose.”
While likewise insisting that “Reiki can never do harm,” Diane Stein con-
cedes that “some of the things people carry and transfer in their energy work
are not Reiki.” Healers who are “very ill or overloaded with problems . . . may
unknowingly transfer their attachments, entities, possession, and more to
you. Certainly never allow someone who is angry or enraged, or intoxicated
or high on drugs, to exchange energy with you.” The “physical symptoms” of
“detoxification,” subsequent to receiving Reiki, include “runny nose, frequent
urination, diarrhea, skin rash, pimples, or body odor.” Anne Charlish and
Angela Robertshaw admit that “sometimes, people may feel worse or experi-
ence a strong emotional reaction to the reiki treatment. This may take the
form of sobbing, hysterical laughter, or overwhelming fatigue. This can be dis-
turbing for both the receiver and the inexperienced reiki practitioner, who may
feel unable to help or unsure what to do.” Increased “intuitive” sensitivity pre-
sumably increases spiritual “vulnerability.” Physical pain may become “a little
worse before disappearing for good,” or “a totally unrelated pain may mani-
fest,” or people may experience other “physical symptoms, such as colds,”
during the “first 21 days after attunements.”45
Similar problems are sometimes reported for Therapeutic Touch. One nurse
trained by Dolores Krieger observed that several of her colleagues, also trained by
Krieger, “experienced psychotic breaks” because they failed to “focus properly.”
Krieger herself warns that an emotionally upset or ill healer can “transfer nega-
tive energy” and that “indiscriminate and persistent interaction [with human
energies] can overload the human system; a healee can overdose on human
energies.” The potential for energy “overdose” has received little, if any, study,
and providers may not inform patients that such risks have been theorized.46

Conclusion
The mainstreaming of CAM is not a product of overwhelming scientific evi-
dence of efficacy and safety. But CAM practitioners are motivated to portray
CAM as benefiting health, in part because of conventional medicine’s failures,
 Does CAM Work? 137

a topic further explored in chapter 7. The widespread acceptance of CAM has

not required strong scientific support given the proliferation of studies report-
ing positive results and careful presentation of findings in a favorable light.
Advertisers succeed in capturing a receptive market by implying, if not dem-
onstrating, that CAM works, regardless of mechanisms.
The ease with which CAM has been integrated into the health-care system
is an unintended consequence of the move toward evidence-based medicine.
Until recently, many medical authorities rejected CAM on two counts: lack
of a plausible physical mechanism for effects and lack of empirical evidence
of effects. Although the purpose of evidence-based medicine is to provide
patients with clinically validated treatments, a side effect is reduced con-
cern with mechanisms. Holistic healers need only present evidence of effi-
cacy, while asserting vaguely that a biological mechanism exists but is poorly
understood.
Even slim evidence for any one approach labeled as CAM functions indi-
rectly to authorize other approaches that share the CAM rubric. Psychologists
refer to a “halo effect.” Lesser-known entities presumably share properties of
better-known entities with which people associate them. If one method in a
category (whether conventional or CAM therapeutics) can be validated, people
infer that other methods in that category also work. In the case of CAM, sci-
entific evidence is strongest for plant-based diets and nutritional supplements
that can be shown to work through biological processes and that can be used
without internalizing a metaphysical worldview. Consumers conclude that
other therapies branded as CAM—even those that seem to hinge on meta-
physical explanations—may be, or even most likely are, also effective. People
assume that evidence of efficacy and insight into physical mechanisms may
eventually be discovered once more research has been published.47
People who desire better health often use multiple strategies. This holds
true even when people are convinced that one approach is more effective
than others, a phenomenon that psychologists call “matching law.” Rather
than abandon outright less effective options, even when using a less effec-
tive method temporarily precludes using a more effective method, people try
various sources of aid roughly in proportion to perceived reward. Economists
debate whether “rational choice” explains selections among alternatives.
People pursuing health do not always appear to behave rationally. Emotional
reactions, such as fear, panic, affection, or hope, prompt selection of less-
than-optimal choices. Desperation leads to reckless experimentation. Goaded
by an urgent need for pain relief or a compelling drive for peak wellness,
people sample market offerings, giving scant attention to why they should
work.48
138 the healing gods

The question of safety receives more attention from conventional doctors

and regulatory agencies than from CAM practitioners. Data indicate that CAM
providers do not always discuss risks with clients, even though physical, psycho-
logical, and spiritual risks have been reported. Yet patients select CAM because
they perceive it to be effective and safe, perhaps more effective and safer than
conventional medicine. We turn in chapter 6 to a case study of acupuncture—
the CAM approach widely regarded as having the strongest scientific support—
for deeper insight into the roles of medical evidence and scientific language in
bringing about CAM’s mainstreaming.
 6
Acupuncture
Reclaiming Ancient Wisdom

the home page of ChristianAcupuncture.com describes founder Brian

Carter as a “Bible-believing,” “evangelical Christian” who is also a “medical
professor” at Pacific College of Oriental Medicine in California. Carter attests
that he once went through a “spiritual buffet” period, a decade in which he
“explored Buddhism, yoga, Taoism, Zen, and Native American spirituality
(especially Lakota) . . . meditation, tai chi, chi gong, sweat lodges, spirit jour-
neys.” He gleaned “a little of this or that tradition, taking only what I liked,
whatever worked for me,” and considered “spirituality” to be “superior to reli-
gion,” which seemed “closed-minded and ignorant.” One day, however, Carter
had a Christian conversion experience and renounced yoga, meditation, and
martial arts as incompatible with Christianity.1
Carter no longer considers himself a spiritual eclectic, yet he still com-
bines evangelical Christianity with acupuncture. He does this by distinguish-
ing between everyday health needs met by acupuncture and eternal, spiritual
needs met by Christianity: “Chinese medicine, to me, is a brilliant, important
medicine that provides answers for many of our physical, mental, and emo-
tional problems, but as for supernatural and eternal issues, my answers are
in the Bible.” Carter sees Christianity as largely irrelevant to physical health,
although as an evangelical, he affirms that “God and Christian faith come
first in importance and priority. Healing and medicine come after that.” Since
the Bible does not mention acupuncture, Carter seeks to “apply Biblical prin-
ciples” to evaluate it. He admits, “I would like to find out it is compatible
with Christianity, but I also am willing to move on if that turned out to be
incorrect.” Carter says he researched the historical, religious, and scientific
foundations of acupuncture for himself, and he encourages other members of
140 the healing gods

the priesthood of all believers to do likewise by studying suggested readings

listed on his Web site. At the head of this list is the reassurance that widely
respected evangelical opinion shapers such as David Jeremiah, James Dobson,
and Focus on the Family’s Physicians Resource Council all endorse acupunc-
ture. (In point of fact, Jeremiah warns Christians to avoid acupuncture, since
it is “based on the occultic religion of Taoism.”)2
Carter acknowledges that Chinese medicine’s developers were “Buddhists,
Taoists, and Confucian[ists]” who included “spiritual views” of qi, yin, and
yang in their medical theories. But “the main point about acupuncture in a
Christian context is that the acupuncture points work regardless of how the
acupuncturist THINKS they work.” Although “metaphysically minded” acu-
puncturists may “think they’re unblocking qi,” acupuncture really “works via
the nervous system, immune system, and blood complement system.” Carter
cites a book by Donald Kendall, The Dao of Chinese Medicine, which “answers
these problems in scientific terms.” Carter incorrectly identifies Kendall as
“an acupuncturist with a Ph.D. in Engineering and Physics”; Kendall has an
undergraduate engineering degree from the University of Illinois and a doc-
tor of Oriental medicine (O.M.D.) degree from the California Acupuncture
College. But because Kendall convinced Carter that acupuncture works
through scientific mechanisms, Carter concludes that the only potential dan-
ger faced by Christian patients would be incorporating “new age ideas into
your life.” Christians should “pray for protection, stay in the Word, even ask
the acupuncturist if they just needle the points medically or if they try to ‘add’
something energetically or spiritually.” Ideally, Christian patients should seek
out “medically minded” or Christian acupuncturists. Carter’s Web site links
to other Christian acupuncturists and gives a “Bible Verse of the Day” to keep
Christians grounded “in the Word.”3
In today’s cultural milieu, there is little medical or religious controversy
over acupuncture despite its foundations in qi theory. Since the 1970s, con-
ventional doctors and Christian patients alike have welcomed acupuncture
as a scientifically validated, ancient corrective to overly technological mod-
ern medicine. This occurred as sympathetic medical doctors downplayed qi
theory in favor of scientific studies reporting positive results and proposed
biomedical theories for how acupuncture might work. Simultaneously, the
“ancientness” of acupuncture seemed to bear witness to its effectiveness,
since presumably no medical system would have endured for thousands of
years if it did not work. This chapter shows that acupuncture has stronger
scientific backing than do many CAM approaches, but there is inadequate
medical evidence to conclude that acupuncture works or that it is always safe.
Rather than reflecting extraordinary effectiveness, acupuncture’s integration
 Acupuncture 141

into the U.S. health-care system is a product of widespread dissatisfaction

with modern medicine and reactionary longing for ancient, natural, exotic
healing wisdom.

The Forgetting and Reimagining of an

Ancient Healing Tradition
The term acupuncture (chen-shu) is a composite of the Latin acus, translated as
“needle,” and puncture, translated as “pricking.” Acupoints are “gates” that can
presumably be opened and closed by inserting and manipulating needles (or
applying external pressure, as in acupressure) to adjust the circulation of qi
along meridians, or channels, that connect distant bodily organs. Classical acu-
puncture theory—founded on the assumption that the human body is a micro-
cosm of reality—recognized 365 points (one for each day of the year) and twelve
main meridians (one for each month or each of China’s great rivers). Modern
acupuncturists may refer to two thousand points and twenty meridians.4
Although it is true that acupuncture has been practiced in China “for thou-
sands of years,” as proponents frequently note, it is simplistic to conclude
that acupuncture endured “because it worked.” The history of acupuncture is
not one of continuity or linear advance. Histories written by those who want
to portray acupuncture as “science” instead of “religion” emphasize ancient,
empirical beginnings and hint that Taoist meanings were only added later
and can be just as easily removed. Some scholars claim that Chinese artifacts
dated to 1000 b.c.e. reveal the use of acupuncture and that remains of a five-
thousand-year-old-man, “Otzi the Iceman,” discovered in Europe provide even
earlier evidence of acupuncture’s geographic diffusion. Other scholars deny
that there is any clear evidence that acupuncture was practiced in China before
the mid-second century b.c.e. This evidence consists of four gold and five sil-
ver needles discovered in the tomb of a prince who died in 113 b.c.e.5
None of the earliest-known Chinese medical texts—fourteen of which
were discovered in graves sealed in 168 b.c.e.—mentions acupuncture. One
of the most important Chinese medical guides is the Huang-ti Nei-ching (c.
600 b.c.e.–1,200 c.e.), often translated as “The Yellow Emperor’s Classic of
Internal Medicine.” The Nei-ching is based on a Taoist philosophy of maintain-
ing health by living a balanced life that accords with virtues of humankind,
laws of nature, and changing seasons. This classic provides theoretical foun-
dations for concepts of qi and meridians but remains silent about acupoints
for needle insertion. According to the Nei-ching, “the sky is the source of our
virtue, and the earth is the source of our vital air [qi]. Virtue flows to combine
142 the healing gods

with vital air to create life.” The Nei-ching indicates that qi theory may have
predated medical experiments with needling.6
The earliest-known written reference to “needling” (chen) was found in a
historical rather than a medical text. The Shih-chi (c. 90 b.c.e.) or “Records
of the Historian” of Ssu-ma Ch’ien includes a single reference to needling
(to resuscitate a dead prince by placing a needle in the back of his head) but
does not mention acupoints, meridians, or qi. The first uses of needling
are disputed. One hypothesis is that ancient peoples pricked the skin with
pointed rocks to release blood, thereby expelling disease-causing spirits. Other
accounts suggest roots in “observational science,” specifically the observation
that soldiers wounded by arrows sometimes recovered from previous ill-
nesses. Observers may have reasoned that recoveries had something to do
with where arrows punctured the body, leading to experiments with piercing
the skin intentionally to mimic effects from arrows; only later did theorists
append the goal of rebalancing the flow of qi. This line of reasoning does
not, however, negate early evidence of qi theory in medical texts such as the
Nei-ching. Such evidence suggests that early acupuncturists who observed that
needles inserted at specific points seemed to affect other parts of the body
could draw upon concepts of qi and yin-yang to map out acupoint and merid-
ian networks. Taoism supplied a theory, and empiricism a method, for gaining
knowledge about the body.7
As medical knowledge developed, it came to be distinguished from reli-
gious knowledge. Between 1000 b.c.e. and 200 c.e., a self-conscious medical
profession emerged. By the mid-eighteenth century, authors lamented for-
getting the ancient acupuncture tradition. Between the seventeenth and the
mid-twentieth centuries, Chinese officials seeking modernization evaluated
acupuncture as a superstitious and irrational religious practice. The Chinese
emperor banned acupuncture from the Imperial Medical Institute in 1822.
The Japanese government prohibited acupuncture in 1876. With the growing
acceptance of Western medicine, the Chinese government outlawed acupunc-
ture altogether in 1929.8
For political reasons, Chinese authorities reinvented acupuncture with a
newly secular face in the mid-twentieth century. After the Communist revolu-
tion of 1949, Mao Tse-tung reinstated acupuncture and other TCM practices
during the Great Leap Forward (1950s) and the Cultural Revolution (1966–
1976). Nationalistic and pragmatic goals motivated this policy reversal, since
the alternative was no health care at all for most people. Mao ordered the purg-
ing of Taoist references and encouraged scientific research.9
By the late twentieth century, Chinese interest in TCM again waned,
in preference for Western medicine. Today, emergency medical centers
 Acupuncture 143

and hospitals in China use Western biomedicine for trauma and serious
disease, often reserving TCM for posttrauma recuperation and rehabilita-
tion and treatment of minor conditions and repeated stress injuries (see
figure 6.1).10

The Invention of Medical Acupuncture

Even as Western medical technologies displaced acupuncture in China,
Americans and other Westerners became enthralled by their discovery of
this ancient medical system. A 2007 survey found that 3.1 million Americans
had visited an acupuncturist in the past year, up from 2.1 million in 2002.
Acupuncture accounts for an estimated 1 percent of all U.S. CAM usage but
90 percent of all visits to a CAM provider—some 9 million to 12 million visits
annually, costing $500 million per year in 1993. Those undergoing treatment
average forty sessions a year. Additionally, herbal medicine, much of which is
based in TCM, involved 30 percent of Americans and generated $80 billion in
revenues in 2009.11
Europeans learned of acupuncture as early as the thirteenth century
and experimented with it off and on throughout the early-modern period.

figure 6.1 Acupuncture for migraine headaches at “Traditional Eastern Medical

Hospital” in China, 2009. (Courtesy Yi Cai)
144 the healing gods

Information came from Jesuit missionaries, traders, diplomats, and physi-

cians who traveled to China or Japan. A sixteenth-century Jesuit missionary
to China, Matteo Ricci (1552–1610), sought to convert Chinese intellectuals to
Christianity by demonstrating that Christianity was not opposed to Chinese
concepts of religion or medicine but was the most perfect manifestation of
what the Chinese had already discovered. Today the Matteo Ricci School of
Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine and the Matteo Ricci Foundation advance
acupuncture instruction and research in Italy. Chinese immigrants to the
United States brought knowledge of TCM with them during the California
Gold Rush (1848–1855) and construction of the Transcontinental Railroad
(1860s) and after the Immigration Act of 1965. Nevertheless, TCM remained
largely within immigrant communities.12
While Chinese officials were backing away from acupuncture in the
early nineteenth century, British and American medical journals, possi-
bly inspired by the era’s Transcendentalist turn toward Asian religion and
philosophy, published articles on acupuncture. Sir William Osler’s influ-
ential textbook, Principles and Practice of Medicine (1892), mentions acu-
puncture. By the early twentieth century, British and American interest
in acupuncture had faded. A turning point came in 1971, when President
Richard Nixon sent Henry Kissinger to China in preparation for his own
visit the following year, symbolizing a new era of friendly relations. One
of Kissinger’s traveling companions was New York Times reporter James
Reston. During the trip, Reston underwent an emergency appendectomy
at the Anti-Imperialist Hospital in Beijing and received acupuncture for
postsurgery pain relief. Reston wrote about his experience in the Times
and captured the American imagination. His article came at a moment
in American cultural history when the holistic health-care movement was
gaining momentum.13
As many Americans grew increasingly disillusioned with modern biomed-
icine, they were conversely fascinated by “ancient,” less technological, more
“natural” medical systems. Theories of qi and yin-yang balance resonated with
the life-force concepts of other ascendant CAM practices in the 1970s, and
the growing popularity of such movements was mutually reinforcing. People
equated ancientness with health and purity, and they equated modernity with
sickness and decline. Today NCCAM brochures note that acupuncture has
been “practiced in China and other Asian countries for thousands of years.”
The Mayo Clinic Web site introduces acupuncture as having “originated in
China thousands of years ago.” Age implies efficacy. This correlation is stated
directly by Donald Kendall in Dao of Chinese Medicine: Understanding an Ancient
Healing Art (2002): “Chinese medicine has survived for many centuries for
 Acupuncture 145

the very reason that it has been effective in addressing a wide range of human
ailments.” Peter Gilligan’s book What Is “Tai Chi”? (2010) pursues a similar
line of reasoning: “The Chinese themselves have always been a very practical
and empirical people. Their medicine could not have survived as long as it has
without actually working.” The fact of TCM’s survival (overlooking the years
during which the Chinese abandoned it) is interpreted as evidence that it must
work—the only question is how.14
Explanations offered by modern acupuncturists often presuppose classical qi
theory. The Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Alliance Web site describes qi as
the “vital energy behind all life forms and life processes.” Writing for the Journal
of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in 2007, Jian Kong, an acupunctur-
ist and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital, describes the objective
of acupuncture as “de qi,” meaning to “obtain” the “vital energy.” Kong moves
inserted needles until they feel heavy and full, indicating that “qi has arrived.”
When a patient senses coldness at the insertion site, this is “Yin qi,” whereas
warmth corresponds to “Yang qi.” Connie, a “National Board Certified, licensed
acupuncture therapist” who also practices homeopathy, was less precise when
she explained how acupuncture works for an interviewer in 2009: “all I know is
that people are experiencing a blockage of energy, and it is my job to unblock it.”
Connie cultivates “spirituality”—but not “religion”—in her acupuncture practice,
creating ambience with a bubbling fountain, soft music, and aromatic candles.15
Since the late twentieth century, acupuncture has gained widespread con-
ventional medical acceptance as promoters emphasized efficacy, confirmed
by clinical studies, while downplaying qi theory in favor of biomedical theo-
ries. In 1978, Joseph Helms, M.D., coined the term medical acupuncture when
he taught his first continuing medical education workshop on the subject,
sponsored by the American Holistic Medical Association. Helms designed a
controlled clinical trial of acupuncture for dysmenorrhea, wrote a textbook,
and founded the American Academy of Medical Acupuncture. He estab-
lished the Medical Acupuncture for Physicians Program in 1983 at the UCLA
School of Medicine (offered with the Stanford School of Medicine since
2003), which has trained six thousand doctors. The renowned Mayo Clinic
has advocated for acupuncture since the 1970s. The clinic’s Complementary
and Integrative Medicine Program has licensed acupuncturists on staff to
treat patients for such stubborn conditions as chronic pain in the back,
neck, shoulder, and face, plus migraines, fibromyalgia, and infertility (see
figure 6.2). Acupuncture heads the “Top Ten” list of CAM treatments recom-
mended by the Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine.16
Supporters of medical acupuncture reinterpret classical concepts of
qi and yin-yang balance using scientific language to appeal to modern
146 the healing gods

figure 6.2 Electroacupuncture for chronic fatigue and pain in neck, shoulders,
and lower back, 2009. (Courtesy Yi Cai)

American audiences. Herbal Healing Secrets of the Orient (1998) defines

qi simply as a “foundation or structure.” Pocket Atlas of Chinese Medicine
(2009) couples references to qi and blood flow to imply near equivalence,
since acupuncture boosts the “functions of organs to produce more qi
or blood.” An overview of acupuncture written for nurses in 2000 com-
pares yin with the nonreligious principles of femininity, receptivity, still-
ness, and passivity; yang corresponds to masculinity, strength, force, and
activity. Donald Kendall denies that qi and yin-yang were ever metaphysi-
cal concepts; he blames poor translation of a difficult language for creat-
ing misunderstanding. The Chinese character for qi has, in Kendall’s view,
inaccurately been translated as “energy” instead of “air,” while the character
rendered as “meridians” (mai) really refers to the “blood vascular system.”
Once these translation errors have been remedied, it becomes “obvious
that the mechanisms do not involve mysterious energy circulation, but
involve extremely complex physiological mechanisms that can be described
in Western terms.” Admitting that “there are many Chinese practitioners
who embrace the energy-meridian view, sometimes promoting the mystical
aspects of Chinese thought,” Kendall insists that “energy-meridians do not
represent the original theories of Chinese medicine.” A 1992 report to the
 Acupuncture 147

NIH, Alternative Medicine: Expanding Medical Horizons, describes acupunc-

ture without reference to qi or yin-yang; acupuncture “involves stimulating
specific anatomic points in the body for therapeutic purposes.” The NIH
report claims that “modern theories of acupuncture are based on labora-
tory research conducted in the past forty years. Acupuncture points have
certain electrical properties, and stimulating these points alters chemical
neurotransmitters in the body.” In this rendering, vital energy merges with
electrical energy, as acupoints become chemical gateways.17
Acupuncture’s American popularizers established medical credibility by
articulating biologically plausible though unspecific theories for how acu-
puncture might work. Three principal explanations are posited. The “opioid
release” theory is that needling stimulates nerves in the muscles, thereby
releasing endorphins into the central nervous system. The “spinal cord
stimulation” or “gate” theory holds that needling releases pain-suppressing
neurotransmitters. The “blood-flow changes” theory is that needles affect the
amount of blood flow at the points of insertion, thereby supplying nutrients
or removing toxic substances from the local area. These postulates may be
combined and associated with known aspects of anatomy and physiology. The
medical doctors who wrote An Introduction to Western Medical Acupuncture
(2008) adopt medical vocabulary to hypothesize “local effects” and “chain
reactions” of nerve stimulation, neurotransmitter release, blood-flow increase,
and improved function of local glands, in addition to “segmental” and
“extrasegmental analgesia” and “central regulatory effects” to extend the chain
reactions to the spinal cord, dorsal horn, brainstem, and midbrain. A physi-
cian-authored Alternative Medicine Sourcebook (2002) specifies that acupoints
conduct electromagnetic signals that may trigger the release of endorphins or
the movement of immune-system cells. Related suggestions are that needling
produces distant effects on nerve cells, the pituitary gland, and the brain, lead-
ing to changes in blood pressure, body temperature, and immunity.18
Clinical language identifies acupuncture as a medical technique. The
NCCAM explains that “the acupuncture technique that has been most
often studied scientifically involves penetrating the skin with thin, solid,
metallic needles that are manipulated by the hands or by electrical stimula-
tion.” Words such as “penetrating,” “thin,” “solid,” “metallic,” “needles,”
“electrical,” and “stimulation” identify acupuncture as sophisticated medi-
cal technology. The NCCAM describes meridians as “14 main channels
‘connecting the body in a weblike interconnecting matrix’ of at least 2,000
acupuncture points.” Numerically specific language makes the meridian
concept sound anatomically precise. Nevertheless, medical promoters
remain vague about how and why acupuncture works. The Mayo Clinic
148 the healing gods

Web site admits that “scientists don’t fully understand how or why acu-
puncture affects the amount of pain you feel.” The important point is that
acupuncture relieves pain.19

Interpreting the Empirical Evidence

Acupuncture’s growing integration into the American health-care system depends
on its emergent status as evidence-based medicine. Hundreds of acupuncture
studies have been published since the 1970s, both in China and in the West.
Individual studies report that acupuncture relieves pain and cures blindness,
paralysis, cancer, psychiatric and neurological disorders, infections, skin diseases,
gynecological and obstetrical problems, and disorders of the respiratory, digestive,
and cardiovascular systems (see figure 6.3). Meta-analyses of this literature do
not, however, confirm most such claims. A summary published in the Annals of
Internal Medicine in 2002 notes that systematic reviews “most often report that tri-
als of acupuncture efficacy are equivocal or contradictory.” The 2001 White House
Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy (which acu-
puncture proponent Joseph Helms shaped) found medical evidence favoring acu-
puncture to be strongest for low-back pain and recurrent headaches, noting that “a
number of Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews of this worldwide research
literature have identified the potential benefits of CAM and related approaches
and products for a small number of chronic conditions.” The White House report
cites exactly two systematic reviews of acupuncture, neither of which was actu-
ally published in the Cochrane database and neither of which strongly supports
acupuncture. The first is a 1999 review of acupuncture for acute and chronic low-
back pain, which concludes that “because this systematic review did not clearly
indicate that acupuncture is effective in the management of back pain, the authors
would not recommend acupuncture as a regular treatment for patients with low
back pain.” The second cited review, also published in 1999, found that “over-
all, the existing evidence suggests that acupuncture has a role in the treatment
of recurrent headaches. However, the quality and amount of evidence [are] not
fully convincing.” Alongside the White House investigation—which endorsed
acupuncture based on relatively scant evidence—an NIH review panel reported
in 1997 that there are “promising results” for acupuncture for postoperative and
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and postoperative dental pain.20
Given “promising” though inconclusive findings, research on acupuncture
has proliferated. A 2004 review of systematic reviews notes that “evidence of
clinical effectiveness is also still elusive for many conditions such as chronic
pain.” The review did, however, find that systematic reviews demonstrated
acupuncture’s value in treating nausea, dental pain, back pain, and headache.
 Acupuncture 149

Consumer information issued by the NCCAM in 2010 reports “promising

findings in some conditions, such as chronic low-back pain and osteoarthritis
of the knee,” and advises that patients suffering from a “wide range of condi-
tions . . . may wish to ask your doctor whether acupuncture might help.” But
the NCCAM warns: “Do not rely on a diagnosis of disease by an acupuncture prac-
titioner who does not have substantial conventional medical training” (emphasis
in original). Acupuncture may help where conventional medicine cannot, but
even from the sympathetic perspective of the NCCAM, acupuncture cannot
replace modern medicine.21
Cochrane reviews of acupuncture are largely inconclusive. A search of the
Cochrane Library for acupuncture reviews completed through July 2012 yields
forty-nine distinct review areas. Within this body of literature, pain is the prob-
lem most frequently studied. Cochrane reviewers have assessed acupuncture’s
value in managing fifteen types of pain. For eight pain areas—shoulder, low
back, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, lateral elbow, whiplash, carpal tunnel syn-
drome, analgesia for oocyte retrieval during in vitro fertilization—reviewers
found insufficient evidence to conclude that acupuncture is effective. Reviewers
found some evidence of acupuncture’s possible advantages relative to sham

figure 6.3 Cancer patient receiving acupuncture to treat side effects of sur-
gery, chemotherapy, and radiation: dry mouth, low energy, and red scarring, 2009.
(Courtesy Yi Cai)
150 the healing gods

or control groups for seven pain categories. Specifically, a 2009 meta-analysis

for tension-type headaches infers that “acupuncture could be a valuable non-
pharmacological tool,” based on results from six studies that found “slightly
better effects” for real versus sham acupuncture; however, this same review
found that in four studies in which acupuncture was compared with control
groups receiving physiotherapy, massage, or relaxation, patients in the con-
trol groups had “slightly better results for some outcomes.” A 2009 migraine-
headache review found “no difference between the effects” of real and sham
acupuncture, although both groups seemed to benefit. A 2006 neck-disorder
review found “better pain relief” for real acupuncture than for sham or wait-
list control groups, but weaknesses in the evidence made it possible only to
“draw limited conclusions.” Acupuncture showed “better results” than phys-
iotherapy in a 2007 study of pelvic and back pain in pregnancy, but there was
“high potential for bias, so results must be viewed cautiously.” A 2011 review
of pain in endometriosis found “limited” support based on a single study that
compared acupuncture to Chinese herbal medicine. A 2011 review found that
acupuncture “may reduce period pain, however there is a need for further well-
designed randomised controlled trials.” A 2011 review suggests that acupunc-
ture and acupressure “may have a role with reducing pain” in labor, but there is
a “need for further research.” No Cochrane review rendered a strongly positive
verdict in favor of acupuncture’s efficacy in relieving pain.22
Cochrane reviews have assessed acupuncture for a variety of physical and
mental health problems. Out of thirty-four reviews of acupuncture for condi-
tions other than pain relief, twenty-eight found insufficient evidence to rec-
ommend acupuncture: autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, schizophrenia,
depression, antenatal depression, insomnia, myopia, glaucoma, smoking
cessation, cocaine dependence, chronic asthma, vascular dementia, epilepsy,
Bell’s palsy, traumatic brain injury, induction of labor, acute stroke, stroke
rehabilitation, incontinence after stroke, dysphagia in acute stroke, uter-
ine fibroids, polycystic ovarian syndrome, restless legs syndrome, irritable
bowel syndrome, nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy, hot flashes, breast
engorgement during lactation, and breathlessness in advanced disease.23
Cochrane reviews report benefits from acupuncture for six conditions
other than pain. For chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, a 2006
review found that “electroacupuncture reduced first-day vomiting, but
manual acupuncture did not. Acupressure reduced first-day nausea but
was not effective on later days. Acupressure showed no benefit for vomit-
ing. Electrical stimulation on the skin showed no benefit.” A 2008 review of
assisted conception concludes that “acupuncture does increase the live birth
rate with in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment when performed around the
 Acupuncture 151

time of embryo transfer. However, this could be attributed to placebo effect

and the small number of trials included in the review.” The review warns
that “acupuncture may have potential harmful effects in early pregnancy.”
A 2011 review of nocturnal enuresis found “weak evidence to support the use
of hypnosis, psychotherapy, acupuncture, chiropractic and medicinal herbs
but it was provided in each case by single small trials, some of dubious meth-
odological rigour.” A 2009 review of anesthesia induction in children noted
a single study reporting that acupuncture given to parents reduced paren-
tal anxiety, making children more cooperative, but this “needs to be investi-
gated further.” A 2012 review found “limited evidence to support the use of
moxibustion [burning mugwort herbs on an acupoint in the feet] for correct-
ing breech presentation [in childbirth]. . . . However, there is a need for well-
designed randomised controlled trials.” The only Cochrane review reporting
unambiguously positive results was a 2009 study of postoperative nausea
and vomiting (PONV); P6 acupoint stimulation worked as well as antiemetic
drugs in preventing PONV.24
Although most completed Cochrane reviews reach negative or equivo-
cal judgments, a steady stream of new Cochrane reviews of acupuncture are
in the registered title and protocol stages. The volume and variety of ongoing
research—in the absence of strongly positive findings in previous studies—
suggest widespread interest in establishing acupuncture’s therapeutic value.
Motivation to find evidence that acupuncture works may bias results of individ-
ual studies and meta-analyses. Cochrane reviews are highly regarded as the best
single source of information on the safety and efficacy of health interventions.
In the case of acupuncture, however, there is reason to question how much can
be concluded even from Cochrane reviews. A 2005 meta-analysis of Cochrane
reviews on acupuncture found ten review areas: low-back pain, headache, lat-
eral elbow pain, rheumatoid arthritis, dysmenorrhea, induction of labor, smok-
ing cessation, chronic asthma, Bell’s palsy, and PONV. Review authors made
“conclusive statements” in just two reviews, dismissing the value of acupunc-
ture for smoking cessation and classifying acupuncture as equally as effective
as antiemetic drugs for PONV. But for all ten reviews, the meta-analysis found
significant “methodological limitations in the original clinical trials” that reduce
their evidential value. Although the resultant Cochrane reviews are of “superior
methodological quality and less prone to bias compared to reviews published in
conventional medical journals”—let alone individual trials—the methodologi-
cal diversity of database searches used makes even Cochrane reviews “prone
to bias and adds another layer of complexity in interpreting the acupuncture
literature.” The lead author of the meta-analysis, Amit Sood, does not appear
to be prejudiced against acupuncture; to the contrary, Sood has taken a lead in
152 the healing gods

promoting acupuncture. Yet Sood concludes that medical evidence for acupunc-
ture is limited by poor study quality and high risk of bias.25
Designing high-quality studies of acupuncture is no easy matter. One par-
ticular challenge is selecting a control group. Acupuncture studies typically use
one of three types of control groups: conventional (or no) medical therapy; other
nonmedical active therapies or relaxation, such as massage or music; or sham
acupuncture. Systematic reviews (Cochrane included) tend to include a vari-
ety of control-group types, making comparisons among studies difficult. The
major drawback of comparing acupuncture with conventional or nonmedical
treatment groups is that any observed effects for the acupuncture group may be
the results of “nonspecific” or “placebo” effects. In other words, patients receiv-
ing acupuncture may experience improvements because they expect to benefit,
not because of acupuncture per se. The bulk of acupuncture studies reporting
positive findings are for pain relief. A Cochrane review of placebo research con-
cludes that placebos play a role in pain reduction. Comparisons of acupuncture
with other forms of therapy or relaxation present similar problems, since it is
possible that subjects in the “control” groups may also experience benefits (or
harms) for nonspecific reasons; studies may inadvertently show which type of
placebo is more effective, rather than demonstrate that either experimental or
control therapies are effective in themselves.26
Comparing real and sham acupuncture presents special problems.
Researchers performing sham acupuncture select nonacupoint locations and/
or insert needles more superficially—in some studies, two to four inches
less deep, or not penetrating the skin. If a placebo effect is involved, sham
needling—which may feel different, especially to patients accustomed to real
acupuncture—may not produce as much expectation of benefit, which could
account for any apparent superiority of real acupuncture.27
Some studies do report benefits for real as compared with sham acupunc-
ture. A 1989 study found that alcoholics who received real versus sham acu-
puncture had half the number of drinking episodes and were half as likely
to be admitted to detoxification centers following treatment. A 2008 study
of chronic prostatitis and chronic pelvic pain found real acupuncture to be
twice as effective as sham treatments. A 2005 systemic review of research on
chronic low-back pain found real acupuncture to be more effective than sham
acupuncture but found no evidence that acupuncture is any more effective
than other active therapies, such as exercise, massage, physical therapy, spinal
manipulation, and medication. The Cochrane pain reviews discussed above
similarly found some advantages of real versus sham acupuncture but also
revealed instances in which patients in active therapy or relaxation control
groups did better.28
 Acupuncture 153

Other research reports no significant difference between real and sham

acupuncture, a finding that supports the placebo hypothesis. A 2002 study
of pregnant women with nausea and vomiting compared acupuncture, sham
acupuncture, and a no-treatment control group; there was no significant dif-
ference between the outcomes for real and sham acupuncture, although
both groups had better outcomes than those given no treatment. An analysis
published in JAMA in 2004 determined that findings of comparable benefits
from real and sham groups “indicate, but do not conclusively demonstrate, a
therapeutic placebo effect of acupuncture.” Even the pro-acupuncture Mayo
Clinic concedes that “simulated acupuncture appears to work just as well as
real acupuncture,” and acupuncture works best in people who expect it to
work.” The Mayo Clinic’s J. D. Bartleson, M.D., minimizes the impact of this
admission by hypothesizing that “it’s possible that acupuncture points can
be stimulated by even surface pressure.” By implication, supposedly sham
acupuncture may work by the same nonplacebo mechanisms as real acu-
puncture. Although acknowledging that “effects of acupuncture are some-
times difficult to measure,” Mayo Clinic promotional materials nevertheless
aver that “many people swear by it as a means to control a variety of painful
conditions.” This is a fascinating instance in which the attempt and failure
to provide evidence of the efficacy of a practice is dismissed—by no less a
medical authority than the Mayo Clinic—in favor of patient testimonials.29
The apparent safety of acupuncture is commonly cited to justify its promo-
tion even without definitive medical evidence. The WHO acknowledges that
acupuncture is less effective than drug therapy, such as corticosteroids for
rheumatoid arthritis, but calls acupuncture a “reasonable” option because it
lacks serious side effects. The Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine honors
acupuncture with a “shining green light” to signify that it is “generally safe for
most people to use, and studies show it to be effective.” The Mayo Clinic Web
site advises that “since acupuncture has few side effects, it may be worth a try
if you’re having trouble controlling pain with more-conventional methods.”
Nevertheless, serious complications from acupuncture have occasionally been
reported. Some patients exhibit symptoms of addiction and withdrawal, such as
nervousness and agitation, and visit their clinics several times a week asking for
more and longer needles and lengthier sessions. There are cases of unsterilized
needles causing infections and needles puncturing organs, resulting in death.30

Conclusion
Medical acupuncture has become an almost conventional component of the
American health-care system. Acupuncture appeals because it seems to fill
154 the healing gods

gaps left by modern medicine with ancient medical wisdom and also to be
corroborated by scientific research. Many people regard the ancientness of a
technique as prima facie evidence that it works. It is, however, a logical fallacy
that practices of long duration are necessarily effective; another possible expla-
nation is that no better methods were discovered. The endurance narrative
bypasses the complex history of acupuncture in China, including seasons of
decline and outright prohibition. Ironically, periods of American enthusiasm
for acupuncture coincided with eras of relative neglect in China.
Acupuncture is widely accepted by Americans as a nonreligious, medical
technique. This perception underestimates acupuncture’s religious premises
and overestimates its medical evidence. Confusion may arise because many
Americans assume a rigid separation between “science” and “religion” that did
not exist in ancient Chinese culture and that does not fully characterize mod-
ern American culture. The same Chinese developers who interpreted acupunc-
ture as a science backed by empirical results also conceived of the practice in
terms of qi and yin-yang concepts. Even today, many Chinese and American
practitioners envision the objective of acupuncture as unblocking the flow of
qi and restoring yin-yang balance, although acupuncturists may choose not to
communicate these views to patients, a topic developed in the concluding chap-
ter below. In creating “medical acupuncture,” promoters found it expedient to
downplay qi theory in favor of biomedical hypotheses of possible mechanisms.
The articulation of medical postulates does not, of course, prove that acupunc-
ture works in ways theorized—or even that it works. Neither does using medical
language calculated to make acupuncture palatable to consumers necessarily
indicate abandonment of Taoist ideas. In any case, many Americans care less
about why acupuncture works than that it appears to work.
The efficacy of acupuncture appears to be confirmed by the large volume of
clinical studies reporting benefits. Meta-analysis of systematic reviews shows,
however, that the quantity of acupuncture research masks uneven quality,
methodological challenges, and risks of bias. There is more and better evi-
dence for acupuncture compared with many CAM approaches. Nevertheless,
medical evidence suggests that acupuncture—real and sham—may be most
effective in relieving symptoms such as pain and nausea because acupuncture
functions much like a placebo. Yet increasing numbers of Americans believe
that acupuncture leads the pack in frontline integrative medicine. If acupunc-
ture and other CAM practices became mainstream because people developed
an exaggerated perception of the medical evidence, this raises a larger ques-
tion of how this came about. Chapter 7 investigates cultural factors contribut-
ing to CAM’s mainstreaming.
 7
How Did CAM Become Mainstream?

during the last quarter of the twentieth century, CAM products and ser-
vices, obtainable for modest fees in the secular marketplace, introduced many
Americans to religious practices inspired by Western metaphysics and Hindu,
Taoist, and Buddhist traditions. Holistic health care seemed less exotic, for-
eign, and threatening—and less religious—because it was available for pur-
chase at the gym and the hospital instead of gratis in the temple.
This chapter explains that many CAM therapies became mainstream not
because they are nonreligious, Christian, or scientifically validated but because
promoters successfully marketed them as secular and spiritual complements
to biomedicine compatible with any or no religion, including theologically
conservative Christianity. This happened for demand-side and supply-side
reasons. As consumers sought health and wellness options to fill gaps left by
religion and medicine, CAM providers advertised techniques that seemed to
fit the bill. The sale of CAM in secular settings through targeted marketing
to cultural subgroups brought CAM within reach of virtually every American
employee, shopper, student, patient, and health aspirant.

Consumer Demand
Bodies in Pain
Today’s customers want therapies to relieve pain and deliver better bodies and
more peaceful minds and spirits. Yet physical comfort has not always been a
high priority for American doctors or clergy. Until the mid-nineteenth cen-
tury, many physicians interpreted pain as indicating therapeutic progress. As
medical understandings of disease advanced, doctors redefined pain as merely
a physical sensation. Although physicians ceased to valorize painful, heroic
therapies, they also became less likely to take seriously complaints of pain for
156 the healing gods

which a physiological cause could not be located. Clergy commonly identi-

fied bodily pain as chastisement for sin or means of sharing the sufferings of
Christ. Anesthesia was introduced in 1846, but its use did not become stan-
dard until the 1880s, partly because clergy worried that artificially produced
insensitivity to pain represented disobedience to God’s will.1
As anesthesia and other painkillers made it possible to dull, if not altogether
avoid, pain, especially during surgery and childbirth, clerical admonitions
to accept pain passively lost appeal. Developing medical technologies made
freedom from pain appear within reach, yet medicine’s failure to eradicate
pain encouraged therapeutic experimentation. As many Americans refused
severe medical regimens in favor of the body’s natural restorative powers, they
rejected Calvinism’s view of the body as enemy of the soul. Some Christians
reasoned that the devil sends affliction, whereas God promises divine healing.
As pain lost its compensatory association with higher purposes, the suffering
produced by pain intensified, increasing the urgency of finding relief.2
Desire for pain relief, pleasure, and overall wellness constituted a neces-
sary but insufficient condition for growing, though by no means unanimous,
approval of holistic healing by theologically conservative Christians. Having
largely abandoned ascetic notions that Christians should harm the body to
heal the soul, evangelicals remained anxious to avoid harming the soul to heal
the body. Prerequisite to Christian acceptance of CAM was assurance that
CAM is Christian or at least nonreligious. Implicitly, as Americans, Christians
among them, reimagined pain as bad or at best morally neutral, they came to
regard as good treatments that promised to relieve pain or provide pleasur-
able tactile sensations. The driving question in evaluating pain-relief methods
shifted from “what does it mean?” to “does it work?”3

Disillusionment with Christian Churches

Holistic healing appeals to Americans who feel frustrated with Christian
religious institutions that have been culturally dominant through much of
America’s history. Because Christian clergy have often devalued the body
and its senses, blamed the sick for their afflictions, or discouraged prayer for
miraculous healing, people have sometimes viewed Christianity as irrelevant
to daily health needs and looked elsewhere for help. Christian Reiki healer
Murielle Marchand notes, “something I have also always despised in so many
Christians around me is what I call the ‘praise of suffering.’” The Reverend
Dr. Daryl Greene, a minister in the United Church of Christ, found that the
“first step” in finding relief from suffering—in his case, because of a pro-
gressive neurological condition—was to “throw off any sense that you deserve
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 157

your suffering because you are a sinner, or that your suffering is a punishment
from God.” Greene embraced the physical and “spiritual aspects of receiv-
ing massage therapy”—since “you must surrender yourself, body, mind and
spirit to the therapist”—because massage relieved his suffering and strength-
ened his “life-force,” whereas what Greene heard from other church leaders
seemed merely to justify rather than alleviate suffering.4
Anecdotes abound of Christians feeling dissatisfied by the inadequate heal-
ing resources offered by their churches. Robin Littlefeather Hannon sought
Reiki after feeling beaten down by her Word of Faith pentecostal church: “I
was not healed no matter how positive my confession, nor how many times
hands were laid on me. Eventually the church questioned the quality of my
faith and commitment. I was shamed, blamed for my illness, and eventu-
ally stripped of my ministry and asked to step down.” Roman Catholic Marita
Aicher-Swartz “felt drawn to a ministry of healing and began to wonder what
ever happened to the practice of hands-on healing that Jesus taught the twelve
disciples and others around him,” since within the Catholic church, “the prac-
tice of hands-on healing was the ministry of the clergy and celebrated in the
sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.” Aicher-Swartz is among the 80 per-
cent of Catholic parish ministers who are women; she felt disempowered in
her ministry of Christian education as “more and more of the children and
parents . . . were seeking emotional, mental, and spiritual healing.” Aicher-
Swartz selected Reiki because, she says, “I felt a call to do something in the
area of healing ministry but was stymied as to where to find any answers.”
Christians turn to CAM when they do not find healing or empowerment to
become healers in church.5
People look to CAM not just for medical help but also for firsthand spiri-
tual experiences to supplement, or replace, inherited doctrines. Judy Chuster,
a Christian nurse who practices Therapeutic Touch, reasons that “feeling
the energy fields gives me something tangible, although certainly the Holy
Spirit is greater than just the energy fields.” Christian pastor Scott Wyman
describes his initiation into Reiki as “a very spiritual experience not unlike
my experience of baptism, as I felt an increased connection to God and to
His healing power,” which Wyman identifies with the “Divine or Universal
Self. (Bodhicitta, Christ Consciousness, Buddha Nature, etc.) This is our true
nature.” When religious studies professor Lola Williamson interviewed par-
ticipants in Hindu-inspired meditation movements, she found that most were
“raised in the Christian or Jewish faiths,” but “their upbringing did not teach
them how to gain access to the transcendent realm . . . of awareness beyond the
mundane.” Meditators were looking for “something that they do not receive in
a church or synagogue,” spirituality “based on inner experiences rather than
158 the healing gods

dogma.” The Catholic theologian Leo Lefubure explains that “people alienated
from the traditional theistic beliefs of Christianity or Judaism may be attracted
to a frame of reference that does not include a creating and redeeming God.
Some converts to Buddhism have complained that Christianity merely talks
about a loving God, whereas Buddhism offers effective strategies to change
one’s awareness and cultivate a peaceful, loving attitude.” One of the most
popular of these strategies is meditation.6
Christians adopt practices such as Buddhist meditation to fill gaps in
their own religious traditions. The Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s (1915–
1968) best-selling autobiography, The Seven Storey Mountain (1948), used Zen
Buddhist mysticism to revitalize Christian mystical spirituality. The Trappist
order opened new monasteries to accommodate the rush of young men
attracted by reading Merton. For Merton, the Mahayana Buddhist idea of shu-
nyata, or emptiness, is the “same thing” as the Christian ideal of knowing
God through dissolution of the self, but with a more practical approach. Jesuit
missionaries, such as the Germans Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle (1898–1990) and
Heinrich Dumoulin (1905–1995) gave fellow Jesuits Zen retreats instead of
taking them through the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, on the premise
that Christians can add an experience of satori, or enlightenment, to Christian
practice. Kakichi Kadowaki grew up Zen Buddhist, was baptized by Dumoulin
in Japan, and was ordained a Jesuit priest. Kadowaki found Ignatian train-
ing “intellectual and abstract,” whereas Zen offered the Christian a missing
“religious practice (Sanskrit carya) that perfected the spirit through the train-
ing of the body.” He developed “Zen-Ignatian” retreats, which begin with an
“initiation” (a term commonly used for Buddhist ceremonies). The practice
of tanden-koku, described by Kadowaki as “breathing with the guts” or, more
traditionally, from one’s “vital center,” ideally leads to experiencing the “breath
(ruah, Spirit) of life of God (the Holy Spirit)” in “Genesis 2–7.” Retreat partici-
pants receive a “Christian Koan” and substitute recitation of “Abba, Father!”
for “Mu,” meaning nothingness, to identify with Christ in kenosis, or empty-
ing, to attain a “spiritual eye (a kind of Christian Satori).” The Irish Jesuit
Robert Kennedy affirms that zazen (meditating to cultivate “no-mind,” or mu-
shin) “can add much to our prayer.” Because “the fundamental doctrine of
Buddhism teaches that the substance of all existence is emptiness. . . . There
is no self. . . . Zen reminds us that Christian contemplation is not a looking at
Christ, or a following of Christ, but a transformation into Christ. . . . All cling-
ing and possessive love is a primordial delusion which brings terrible suffer-
ing.” The Irish Benedictine monk John Main (1926–1982) learned to meditate
with a “Christian mantra” from the Hindu Swami Satyananda. According to
Main, “one thing we learn in meditation is to abandon desire, and we learn it
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 159

because we know that our invitation is to live wholly in the present moment.”
So rendered, meditation offers not only a practical method for knowing God
but, more comprehensively, a revised understanding of divine and human
nature and the cause and remedy of suffering.7
In today’s religious market, churches that want to attract large member-
ships can ill afford to offend those who find CAM appealing. Nineteenth-
century preachers did not mince words in preaching against presumed
heresies such as Christian Science or hesitate to eject church members for
dabbling in practices labeled “occult.” Today, evangelical megachurches model
a seeker-sensitive style designed to appeal to consumers in a pluralistic society.
Pastors who wish to retain flocks may avoid preaching against holistic prac-
tices in which parishioners (especially wealthy, tithing ones, such as chiro-
practors) are passionately invested. Health-related sermons are rare, unless to
encourage prayer for healing or to advise “stewardship” of the body as a “tem-
ple” of the Holy Spirit. The absence of preaching against common healing
practices functions as an implicit endorsement. Moreover, a visible contingent
of Christian clergy actively promotes Christian versions of holistic health.8

Ambivalence toward Modern Medicine

The relationship between Christianity and scientific medicine has been tense
through much of American history. Christians in the late nineteenth century
worried that the new evolutionary paradigm did not seem to require an inter-
ventionist God. Those Christians who came to trust God for divine healing,
especially early-twentieth-century Pentecostals, feared that using medicine
might indicate lack of faith in God to heal. The perceived threat of atheistic
materialism made holistic methods more attractive because they presumed a
spiritual world.
Some Christians found it easier to add missing Christian content to move-
ments that do not rule out spiritual causality than to refute the naturalistic
foundations of biomedicine. It seems more than coincidental that key fig-
ures in the nineteenth-century divine-healing movement also found home-
opathy appealing. Methodist Holiness leader Phoebe Palmer’s husband,
Walter, was a homeopathic physician, as was Episcopal divine-healing pub-
licist Charles Cullis. Leaders of the ecumenical Charismatic renewals of the
1960s made divine healing appear culturally respectable by repudiating early
Pentecostalism’s antimedical stance. Oral Roberts popularized the idea that
divine and medical healing are complementary, and to make the point, he
founded the $250 million City of Faith Medical Center (which failed finan-
cially). Healing evangelist Kathryn Kuhlman (1907–1976) recruited physicians
160 the healing gods

who reviewed before-and-after medical records of those reporting healing in

her miracle services. Several of Kuhlman’s medical supporters were doctors
of osteopathy or otherwise endorsed CAM. It may be that openness to the
“Holy Spirit” encourages openness to other concepts of spiritual energy and
vice versa.9
The appeal of CAM stems in no small degree from frustrations with mod-
ern medicine. This is especially true when it comes to conventional cancer
therapies. Cancer is the single most dreaded disease for many Americans. Even
as life expectancy rose steadily since the turn of the twentieth century—from
forty-seven years in 1900 to seventy-nine in 2010—cancer rates also skyrock-
eted. In 1900, one in twenty-five Americans could expect a cancer diagnosis
at some point in their lives. In 2012, one in two men and one in three women
had a lifetime cancer risk. (But in 1900, more people died from acute illnesses
at younger ages, before their odds of developing cancer increased, and more
people died from cancer undiagnosed.) Today cancer is the second leading
killer, after heart disease, accounting for one in four deaths. The understand-
able antipathy that people feel toward cancer fosters antipathy toward con-
ventional doctors and treatments that can make people sick without curing.
The well-known side effects and failures of conventional therapeutics pushed
consumers toward alternatives that promise to prevent and treat cancer or
cure otherwise terminal cases.10
Desperation and fear fuel experimentation. When Anne Frähm was diag-
nosed with stage-four breast cancer in 1989, she underwent surgery, radia-
tion, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and a bone-marrow transplant, all of
which failed to eradicate the disease. Anne’s husband, Dave, an ordained pas-
tor and staff member of the evangelical Navigators ministry, explored CAM.
Dave led Anne through intensive regimens of juice fasts, enemas, colon/liver
cleanses, daily dry brushing (to keep the qi moving), reflexology and shiatsu
massage, homeopathy, aromatherapy, iridology, applied kinesiology, acu-
puncture, magnets, chiropractic, Therapeutic Touch, and Reiki. Anne went
into remission five weeks after starting CAM, inspiring Dave to become a
naturopathic doctor, certified nutritional consultant, and master herbalist
and to open HealthQuarters Lodge to help others battling cancer by address-
ing the root cause of “toxic stressor overload,” strengthening the “immune
system,” and restoring “homeostasis.” The evangelically stated “mission of
HealthQuarters,” which adds to other holistic therapies a “Bible class” and
“prayer sessions and devotionals,” is to use the “opportunity” to talk to cli-
ents “about the importance of a personal relationship with God through Jesus
Christ.” When Anne died ten years after her initial diagnosis, Dave blamed
“the iron poisoning Anne had in her body as the result of having received
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 161

over 150 blood transfusions during the failed bone marrow transplant.” He
did not entertain the possibility that conventional treatments had extended
her life or that arduous CAM regimens may have been unproductive or harm-
ful. As of 2013, Dave still runs HealthQuarters Lodge; a five-day session at
this self-described “non-profit ministry” costs $2,850. Evangelical Christians
such as the Frähms and their clients may feel as helpless as other Americans
in navigating the confusing, often frightening world of cancer and anticancer
regimens. When neither conventional treatment nor prayer seems sufficient,
people willingly pay for the hope CAM offers.11
The simplicity or oddity of “natural” remedies, even if—or especially
because—they are rejected by conventional doctors, contributes to CAM’s
mystique. Online chat rooms offer a window onto popular reasoning.
Beliefnet.com user Paul W. recounted that another man treated for cancer
at his clinic had been told to put his “affairs in order”; he “tried organic
baking soda and maple syrup and went into remission.” Hearing this, Paul
blogged: “Does it work? I am not sure but I am going to try it because it’s
harmless and cheap. There is an oncologist in Italy using it with great suc-
cess, so what the heck. If I could get to where I could work again rather than
starve on SSD [Social Security Disability] I am all for it. There is a lot of
information if you google it.” Paul did not express concern that much of the
information that can be “googled” is unfiltered and the credibility uncertain.
Blogger IAurR1987 answered a query from another cancer patient: “I don’t
know how open you are to things but if you are, go to your search engine
and type in Budwig protocol . . . (along with essiac tea which you can also do
a search on) and belong to the flaxseed oil Yahoo newsgroup.” Kats5dogs
wrote that “my father is going to be starting hormone therapy for prostate
cancer, but he has also seen a spiritual healer who is having my dad prac-
tice some mindful meditation and imagery. Doesn’t hurt to try.” The lack of
scientific support for CAM is not a deterrent when conventional treatments
seem unlikely to cure.12
People turn to CAM therapies that seem to offer benefits of medicine
and religion, while overcoming apparent limitations of each domain. Alan, a
Christian prepared by his doctors to expect death from congestive heart fail-
ure despite medical treatments and prayers for healing, affirmed that he “still
believes in miracles, and in light of the fatal medical diagnosis,” he planned
to “go full-forward with alternative therapies.” Alan reasoned that God might
heal miraculously through CAM, despite the failure of medicine or prayer
to help. Self-identified evangelical Larry Burkett did not pray for healing of
his metastasized kidney cancer, asking rhetorically, “Is it realistic to expect
God to miraculously heal?” Instead, “the Internet is my primary resource to
162 the healing gods

find alternative therapies,” which Burkett credited with extending his life—
eight years at the time of his writing—through God’s “sovereign will.” Michael
Fackerell, a regular Internet blogger on topics related to “Christian Faith,”
advises against relying solely on prayer or medicine for healing; the first
seems like “tempting” instead of “trusting” God, and the second is like trust-
ing “in men” under the influence of the “evil one.” Fackerell equates “trust in
God” with use of CAM therapies provided by God to “detoxify” and “properly
feed” the body. Occupying a cultural space between conventional medicine
and religion, CAM profited from disenchantment with both and longing for
benefits promised but not fully delivered by either.13
Themes of disenchantment and longing resonate in the story of Mike and
Cheryl Wilson. When Cheryl was diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer
in 2004, she and her husband, Mike, decided to take a “proactive approach
rather than sit back and let nature take its course.” The Wilsons attended a
cessationist Church of Christ, where Mike was a preacher, and did not expect
God to heal miraculously. Cheryl did ask church elders to pray for her—think-
ing of James 5:14: “Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the
church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.”
The elders did not literally anoint Cheryl with oil, reasoning that “there are
first-century cultural factors behind the ‘anointing with oil’ statement.” In
recalling the incident, Mike quoted James 5:14 but not 5:15: “And the prayer
offered in faith will make the sick person well.” Instead of praying for healing,
the Wilsons asked “comfort and strength . . . regardless of the outcome,” while
stressing that “dependence on God and human instrumentality are not mutu-
ally exclusive.” Mike worried that the “devil” had “poisoned” the “mainstream
cancer industry” in the “West” through “power and big money interests.” By
contrast, holistic methods “more common to the east . . . harnessed the life-
energy” of “natural resources given by the Creator Himself in their purest
state.” Mike looked to “Eastern” methods, rather than prayer or biomedicine,
to access God’s healing resources.14
Cheryl underwent conventional medical treatments: surgery, chemother-
apy, and radiation. But the couple also explored the “best natural remedies.” At
first, this natural approach consisted of a mostly vegetarian diet and “fistfuls
of vitamins and herbs known for their cancer-fighting or immune-building
properties.” Several months into this process, the Wilsons decided to “go alter-
native one hundred percent” after another couple, who had recently started
attending their church, introduced them to a Christian naturopathic doctor,
Larry Rawdon. Rawdon is a licensed pharmacist who owns an “all natural
health food and herb store” named “Osa’s Garden, Inc.: Health God’s Way.”
The store, still in business in 2013, sells juicing machines and supplements,
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 163

and offers nutritional consultations and toxic cleanses. In 2007, Rawdon cur-
tailed his naturopathic practice after a Tennessee court fined him $1 million
for practicing medicine without a license.15
From “Dr. Rawdon”—as the Wilsons called him—Cheryl and Mike learned
to conceptualize health as God-given “life energy.” The premise is that God
makes life energy available through fresh air, water, sunlight, good thoughts,
and “living food.” Rawdon emphasizes that “it’s not me healing people, it’s
God. . . . God sent Joshua into the Promised Land and told him not to destroy
the fruit trees because in them is a man’s life that he can eat and live. . . . So
the life force that is in the fruits and vegetables, it’s what our cells need.” The
Wilsons combined Rawdon’s religious description of life energy with the sci-
entific language of popular medical writer Andrew Weil, M.D., that “healing
requires energy. Energy is supplied by metabolism.” The Wilsons spent a “fair
amount of money” on “whole food supplements” from Rawdon’s store and
commenced a raw-foods diet consisting largely of freshly extracted juices,
uncooked oatmeal, and almonds. According to Rawdon’s living-foods philoso-
phy, cooking “kills the foods,” and dead foods open the door to “parasite inva-
sion and nutritional deficiency,” causing chronic disease. Living foods provide
vital energy essential to life.16
Rawdon also taught Cheryl to eliminate toxins. She received regular
massages, treatments with a “machine that did frequency specific acupunc-
ture” (to administer precise doses of qi), self-administered twice-daily cof-
fee enemas, and underwent weekly “ionic cleanse treatments.” Mike at
first greeted the ionic cleanse—an “electrically charged” foot bath—as sci-
entifically and religiously suspect “hocus pocus.” But when he observed
the water “dramatically changing” to a dark orange color, Mike accepted
Rawdon’s interpretation that toxins were being removed. Mike added a reli-
gious interpretation, that Cheryl was following “the Israelites of the Old
Testament in exterminating ‘Hittites, Amorites, Jebusites, and parasites,’”
without commenting on the biblical passage’s proscription against adopt-
ing new religious practices.17
The alternative route pursued by the Wilsons offered purpose and hope.
It gave “something to do or consume almost every hour of the day,” rather
than waiting in fear of the cancer’s return. Two years into the process, Mike
self-published Christians and Cancer: A Journey of Hope (2006). It is uncertain
whether the Wilsons’ approach resulted in physical cure. The type of cancer
with which Cheryl was diagnosed has a five-year survival rate of less than 40
percent. As of 2013, Mike’s book could still be purchased online, but Mike was
no longer listed on staff at his church, and no other information about the
couple could be located.18
164 the healing gods

Better than Biomedicine Alone

There is demand for CAM because consumers desire more than biomedicine.
Nineteenth-century drugstores sold homeopathic alongside allopathic medi-
cines because customers wanted to buy them. The lack of side effects and
palatability of homeopathic preparations (many of which consisted primar-
ily of generous doses of sugar) gave homeopathy what historian Anne Taylor
Kirschmann has called an “entering wedge” among mothers of sick children.
Homeopathy also provided a route to a medical career for nineteenth-century
women who were systematically excluded from conventional medical training
and practice. Women’s rights activist and homeopathic physician Elizabeth
Cady Stanton faulted both the Protestant and “medical ministries” for inflict-
ing on women “cruel bondage of mind and suffering of body,” whereas
homeopathy empowered women. Over time, homeopathic doctors began pre-
scribing allopathic alongside homeopathic drugs, because patients wanted the
best of both medical systems, and if one doctor would not accommodate this
demand, there were increasing options to go elsewhere. After its heyday in the
mid-nineteenth century, the popularity of homeopathy declined by the 1880s.
Ironically, the success of homeopathy in becoming less obviously different
from conventional medicine led to the movement’s downfall. Patients became
less able to distinguish between homeopathic and allopathic medicine and
less likely to seek homeopathic providers. Homeopathy enjoyed a renaissance
of popular interest by the 1980s as advertisers reemphasized its distinctive-
ness from allopathic medicine. Growing awareness of conventional drug side
effects spurred consumer interest in “natural,” “safe,” “nontoxic,” herbal rem-
edies. Yet consumers also began to realize that “natural,” herbal remedies are
not always “safe” or “nontoxic.” Herbs beneficial at low doses can be toxic at
higher doses, and herbs can interact dangerously with one another or with
synthetic drugs. By using highly dilute substances, homeopathy appeared to
be better than herbal medicine. In 2002, overall U.S. sales of herbal remedies
dropped 7 percent, while homeopathic sales grew 3 percent overall and nearly
50 percent in mainstream drugstores.19
Homeopathy appeals to the self-help-oriented, medically disillusioned
consumer shopping in Walmart or natural-foods pharmacy aisles. Worldwide,
people spent an estimated $1.5 billion on homeopathic medicines in 1999.
Homeopathic sales rose by 500 percent in the United States between 1987
and 1999; in 1995, Americans spent approximately $200 million on homeo-
pathic products. A 2007 National Health Interview Survey found that 4 mil-
lion American adults and 900,000 children had used homeopathy during
the past year. Many pharmacies offer homeopathic products for sale not
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 165

because of demonstrated health benefits but because of consumer demand.

According to Todd Dankmyer, a spokesperson for the National Association of
Retail Druggists, pharmacies sell homeopathic remedies because they “see
homeopathy as a valuable market niche.” Jerry Zlotnik, pharmacist and execu-
tive vice president of Ohio’s Medic Discount Drug chain, justifies his orga-
nization’s sales of homeopathic products by denying that he has an ethical
obligation to sell only health-promoting merchandise, noting, “I also carry
candy, cigarettes, beer and wine.” As another pharmacy owner, Gilbert Weise,
Sr., of Jacksonville, Florida, explains his decision to stock homeopathic rem-
edies: “When I advertise that I’m a pharmacist with homeopathic medicines,
I can’t keep customers out of my shop.” Some consumers select homeopathy
because of famous enthusiasts, a list that includes Pope Gregory XVI (1765–
1846), American author Mark Twain (1835–1910), Britain’s King George VI
(1895–1952), Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, former British prime minis-
ter Tony Blair, and former U.S. president Bill Clinton.20
Most people do not replace but supplement conventional medicine with
CAM, because it offers something different, something more emotionally and
spiritually satisfying. Although medical doctors today typically spend seven
minutes with each patient, CAM appointments involve thirty to fifty minutes
of empathetic touch between practitioner and patient. Holistic providers ask
exhaustive lists of background questions and encourage clients to visit them
regularly, as often as several times a week, which is much more contact than
patients have with physicians or parishioners with pastors. Consumers find
that CAM providers are willing to take time to listen, empathize with their
suffering, and offer hope that ongoing treatments will result in progressive
improvements.21
The healer-client relationship fulfills felt needs for intimate relationships.
One woman visits a male homeopathic doctor because, she says, “I really con-
nect with him, I have a relationship with him, I feel comfortable and trust the
person. He’s not just your clinician, he’s caring.” Another woman says of her
homeopathic provider, “he’s the third most important man in my life after
my husband and son.” Yet another woman attests, “I unburden myself and
he listens. . . . I still go now that I am well and talk to him about any old thing.
But he has suggested that I do not see him for a while. I feel really quite sorry,
my husband is away a lot and I enjoyed unburdening myself.” This woman
experienced more emotional support from her healer than from her husband.
A man suffering from multiple sclerosis affirms, “my massage therapist is
the one person in my life who is able to listen to me. My wife and my kids are
all tired of me complaining about my aches and pains. They are tired of my
problems all together. But I can talk to my therapist and she is so empathetic,
166 the healing gods

so positive, so encouraging. Just her caring attitude makes me feel better.”

A Christian man with a neurological disorder describes the emotional and
spiritual comfort he receives from his female massage therapist: “I have been
to all kinds of doctors. I resent the fact that sometimes I have to wait an hour
and a half in order to have the doctor spend two minutes with me.” By con-
trast, “it genuinely pleases me to pay my massage therapist. When I go to her
office she is waiting for me! She gives me an hour of her undivided attention.
She does not send me away for X-rays and more tests to find out why I am in
pain. When she touches me with her hands and fingers, she can sense where
my pain is and how to make me feel better. She listens to me. She comforts
me. When I leave her office I feel blessed and healed.” Such anecdotes suggest
that CAM relieves suffering by fulfilling a yearning for intimacy.22

Selling CAM
Purging the Toxins of Modernity
Those marketing CAM capitalize on popular fears that modern technology
is inherently toxic. There are two general categories of detoxifying products:
those that combat internal poisons through nutrition and cleanses and those
that neutralize external dangers by identifying and defusing unhealthy ener-
gies. Within the first category, nutritional therapies redress the depletion of
“vital nutrients” with special diets and megadose supplements, while cleans-
ing regimens purge noxious chemical contaminants. Nutritional approaches
seem intuitive to many people, since the very term nutrition sounds nurturing,
healthful, and beneficial. People reason that if poor nutrition causes diseases
such as cancer, exceptionally good nutrition can cure cancer. Diet is one thing
that a person can control by exercising self-discipline, in contrast with undis-
ciplined, out-of-control cancerous growth.
Certain CAM promoters generate fears of contamination in order to cre-
ate a market for products that alleviate fears. The Cancer Nutrition Centers of
America online store carries a full line of supplements designed to “make up
for what your diet might lack.” The “CNCA Essential Pack” of Immunomax
(for “overall health and wellness”), EPAmax (for “immune system support”),
and Oximax Complex (for “cell protection”) sells for $92 for a one-month
supply. EvenBetterNow Natural Health Solutions offers NewGreens Organic
SuperFood Blend—a combination of sixty-eight “super foods” in powder
form—for a special online price of $47 for thirty servings. Jay Kordich, propo-
nent of the Gerson therapy and self-described “Father of Juicing,” boasts that
he “sells millions of juicing machines,” for $395 each. Such products offer
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 167

assurance to Americans—who may feel apprehensive about eating unhealthy

diets—that dietary deficiencies can be compensated for by taking supplements
and drinking juices that provide concentrated nutrition (see figure 7.1).23
Related product lines provoke concern about ingested contaminants,
thereby creating demand for products to cleanse the body of dangerous tox-
ins. Christian television personality and naturopathic doctor Valerie Saxion’s
book, Every Body Has Parasites: If You’re Alive, You’re at Risk! (2003), raises an
alarm—that “85 percent of Americans are infected with parasites”—and helps
readers “discover how to protect against ever becoming a parasitic host as
well as the keys to eliminating any parasites that may have gained entrance.”
Saxion’s answer is that “we need to use specific herbal formulas to deal with
this issue,” all of which can be purchased through her Web site. Saxion’s
“Premium 3 month Cleanse, Rebuild and Digestive Enzymes Program”
includes “Paracease™ (cleanse) and Par Assist™ (healing & regularity herbs
formulation), Ultra Pro™ (Probiotic) & Digestive Dynamics™ (enzymes for-
mula),” for the less-than-retail price of $338. Similarly, the True Health Web
site vows that “Dr. Cutler’s Liver & Kidney Cleanse™” is “vitally important
for optimum health.” This is because “in our modern society, your liver is
under constant attack. Every second of every day, it’s working to undo the

figure 7.1 GREENSuperFood fills any nutritional gaps remaining for the
Whole Foods shopper, 2011. (Photograph by author)
168 the healing gods

negative effects of unhealthy foods, alcohol use, prescription drugs, tainted

water, household chemicals, pesticides, or even worse. Eventually, all the tox-
ins from your daily life are bound to take a toll on the health of your liver”; this
“vital organ” can be protected for $40 per month. Consumers who may not be
experiencing any symptoms of ill health can purchase cleansing products as
insurance against unseen attacks.24
A second CAM category guards against external toxins. These include
“geopathic stress,” or “microwaves” of electromagnetic radiation emanat-
ing from underground water vein crossings and rock faults, which purport-
edly disturb the naturally occurring wavelengths of healthy cells, increasing
susceptibility to cancer. These microwaves are allegedly so weak that only
dowsing rods or radionic (i.e., radio-electronic or distant-energy) pendu-
lums, but not standard scientific instruments, can detect them, yet distur-
bances “reach a height of 600 to 30,000 feet,” so it is just as dangerous
to live on the twentieth floor as on the first floor of a building constructed
within a geopathic field. Even more disconcerting is “abnormal, manmade
electromagnetic radiation” in “our increasingly polluted environment”
from orbiting satellites, high-voltage power lines, electric cables, broadcast
towers, Wi-Fi hotspots, cell phones, electrical wiring and synthetic materi-
als in buildings, and “common household appliances” such as televisions,
computers, microwave ovens, electric blankets, water beds, hair dryers, and
alarm clocks.25
Professional dowsers and “electromedicine” devices offer protection from
environmental hazards. Modern dowsers direct the “ancient art” of divining
or water witching—using a wooden or metal forked rod directed by one’s “hid-
den senses” or “E.S.P.”—to assess building safety and conduct health con-
sultations. One “Health Dowsing” service helps property buyers locate safe
home lots. If no areas “free of radiation” can be located, one can purchase
a “NEUTRALIZER” that “absorbs and dissipates the harmful energy.” The
neutralizer should be “replaced every 2 years,” a time interval long enough not
to discourage would-be customers and short enough to retain an active clien-
tele. Dowser Gary Skillen’s Internet-published article “ARE YOU SLEEPING
IN A CANCER ZONE?” advertises “PROTECTIVE PRODUCTS.” The “Lady-
Bug” is a “cute-looking bug, the size of a dime” that uses “special materials
and antennae to attract and redirect harmful computer screen emissions.”
The “Elf-Pak” is a “dielectric resonator” that can be “placed on the main elec-
trical fuse box in the home or workplace to neutralize harmful electricity” and
protect against “radiations from microwave dishes, power substations and
power transmission lines.” As an additional safeguard, “Earth Crystals will
neutralize harmful geopathic stress zones and create a healing vortex around
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 169

your home or workplace.” The health risks of airline travel—from flying over
numerous geopathic zones while seated above aircraft electronics—are so
great that, according to dowser Kerry Gillett, people should either “avoid air
travel or protect yourself while flying.” Protection requires purchasing “one
of the two devices” that Gillett considers “thoroughly effective in shielding
the flier from excessive aircraft radiations.” These are “The Energy Works
Tripack, $44.00,” available from Gillett, or the higher-priced “MobileCare by
MagmaCare, $382.00,” sold by another vendor. Dowser “Dr. Needle” offers
to “vibrationally” detect, reverse, and cure cancer before the disease is dis-
cernible to conventional diagnostics; this claim is unfalsifiable, since Dr.
Needle admits that he cannot help once cancers are advanced enough to be
diagnosed. Consumers may also purchase a computer program that destroys
“cancer-causing microbes” by generating “specific electromagnetic” frequen-
cies; the “easy to use” three-step protocol consists of installing the CD and
selecting “Auto Channel,” the program number, and “Run.” The marketing of
such products depends on generating demand by first stimulating and then
relieving fears of invisible toxins.26
Deemphasizing their own commercial motives, CAM boosters present
themselves as saving consumers from a conspiracy between the government
and profit-minded medical and food industries that want to keep consumers
from obtaining simple, low-cost cures that would undercut big government
and big business’s unethical pursuit of financial gain. A 1992 CAM guide-
book alleges that “the American ‘cancer industry’—pours billions of dollars
into investigating synthetic compounds instead of undertaking large-scale
research into time-honored herbal remedies that have demonstrated success.
The reason for this is simple: it is much easier to patent a synthetic compound,
and reap enormous profits from it, than to patent a natural compound readily
harvested from Nature.” Although criticisms of health-care industries reflect
populist paranoia and glorification of a bygone premodern era, the charges
are persuasive because there is some basis in fact. As Devra Davis, director of
the Center for Environmental Oncology of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer
Institute, observed in 2007, “if many of these critiques have been animated
and angry, they were not necessarily, for that reason, wrong.” Scientists and
government officials knew for decades before publicizing it that tobacco is
a powerful carcinogen—in part, it seems, because of profits accrued from
advertising and taxation. As early as the 1930s, medical textbooks reported
experimental evidence that common industrial chemicals, arsenic, benzene,
asbestos, synthetic dyes and hormones, and ionizing radiation (like that used
in X-rays) are carcinogenic. Scientists employed in cancer research move,
in Davis’s words, through a “revolving door . . . in and out of cancer-causing
170 the healing gods

industries,” creating conflicts of interest. The ACS and the NCI have long
accepted funding from pesticide, pharmaceutical, chemotherapy, and mam-
mography industries. The American Dairy Association funds public nutri-
tion campaigns, such as the “Four Food Groups” taught in schools from 1956
to 1992. Failures of government and industry to protect consumer interests
opened a doorway of opportunity for CAM providers to step in and promote
themselves as consumer advocates.27

Just Another Commodity in the Secular Marketplace

Many people assume that any product or service widely available in the
open market is secular. People identify “religion” as a private matter avail-
able free of charge or by donation through sectarian networks, rather than
as something sold in the public sphere of commerce and professional ser-
vices. Charging to enroll in instructional workshops or to receive services
from trained professionals implies that techniques are scientific rather than
religious. The TM Book, Transcendental Meditation: How to Enjoy the Rest of
Your Life (1975) chastises readers for the “absurd” assumption that “just
because the TM technique comes from India it must be some Hindu prac-
tice.” Rather, TM workshops teach a technique based on a “scientific discov-
ery which happens to come from India,” a claim apparently substantiated
by the Maharishi’s physics degree from Allahabad University. In the 1990s,
a four-day TM course ran $1,000 ($600 for full-time students, free for chil-
dren younger than ten), with follow-up courses free for life. By 2003, it cost
$2,500 to learn the TM technique, reduced to $1,500 for a shorter course
in 2009. In contrast with the antimodern strain of some CAM methods,
marketing for TM presents an ultramodern technique for counteracting the
stress-producing consequences of modernity. It is a successor to the “most
recent discoveries” of industrial age, space age, and computer age science.
As “thinking is transcended,” the “mind comes into direct contact with the
source of thought,” which is a “field of pure creative intelligence,” and this
mobilizes the “natural mechanisms of the body to neutralize stress and
restore balance in its functioning.” The fact that TM is “taught through a
nonprofit, tax-exempt educational organization” seals the case that TM is
science, not religion.28
Promoters of holistic healing accessed secular institutions by emphasiz-
ing practical health benefits and simple instructions for how to perform tech-
niques, coupled with stripped-down explanations of why techniques should
be executed. Because the holistic philosophy presumes a “correspondence,”
or equivalence and interpenetration, between material and spiritual realities,
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 171

CAM providers can focus on physical techniques without being disingenu-

ous. They choose to offer one, but not another, account of what CAM means
to them, to broaden CAM’s appeal to potential customers. For instance, chi-
ropractors explaining adjustments may provide detailed descriptions of ana-
tomical structures and physiological functions, without mentioning that they
believe that physical manipulations affect a spiritual force. A related strategy
is to speak of health for “body, mind, and spirit” in language general enough
for different audiences to interpret as they choose. Recognizing that the term
New Age had become off-putting to many Americans, editors of the New Age
Journal, after twenty-eight years of publication under that title, reinvented
Body & Soul in 2002 to cast a wider net.29
The professionalization of CAM enhanced its secular public face. Holistic
practitioners sought and won credibility by instituting more rigorous educa-
tional requirements, requiring training-school graduates to pass standard-
ized examinations, awarding certificates, and regulating licensure. By 1974,
all fifty states had chiropractic licensing laws, and the U.S. Office of Education
established an accrediting agency for chiropractic colleges, expanding eligi-
bility for federal funding. In 1976, California became the first state to license
acupuncture. The Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental
Medicine and the Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
formed in 1982 and had accredited fifty-six schools by 2013. The National
Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine admin-
isters standardized examinations for certification in acupuncture, Chinese
herbology, and Oriental body work. The American Academy of Medical
Acupuncture offers certification for medical practitioners. The American
Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, which encourages licen-
sure, had twenty-three thousand members in 2012, out of perhaps forty-five
thousand total practitioners. The Biofeedback Certification International
Alliance formed in 1981 to administer written examinations for board certifi-
cation. By 2011, forty-three states and the District of Columbia had laws regu-
lating massage therapy, with oversight by the National Certification Board
for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. There are more than three hundred
accredited massage programs, which have certified ninety thousand thera-
pists. Some states now restrict Reiki to Licensed Massage Therapists and
require a nursing degree to practice Therapeutic Touch. The Yoga Alliance
and the Yoga Research and Education Center likewise established profes-
sional standards and certifications to which yoga instructors may voluntarily
conform, thereby augmenting yoga’s professional profile. Holistic providers
appear more like other health-care professionals when they have initials after
their names and diplomas on their walls.30
172 the healing gods

Secular Settings Imply Secular Services

Holistic health and wellness programs are widely available in such “secu-
lar” settings as business corporations, public schools, hospitals, and fitness
centers. Meditation entered corporate America through stress-reduction
workshops advertised as making executives and workers more efficient and
profit-producing. The promise of enhanced performance attracted five hun-
dred participants to the 2003 Spirit in Business World Conference in New
York City, one of dozens of such annual gatherings that encourage profes-
sionals to rely less on rational thought and more on “inner wisdom.” When
employers pay for personnel to attend workshops, employees assume that
they will learn skills needed for business success, or else corporations would
not foot the bill.31
Public schools introduce CAM programs, such as Transcendental
Meditation, to improve the performance of teachers and students. Dr. George
Rutherford, principal of the Ideal Academy in Washington, D.C., has been
called the “Grandfather of the TM/Quiet Time program in America.” The
David Lynch (filmmaker and TM aficionado) Foundation for Consciousness-
Based Education and World Peace has donated millions of dollars to spon-
sor TM in public high schools and middle schools, boys and girls clubs, and
before- and after-school programs. The expansion of TM into public educa-
tion did not stop even after a 1979 federal appeals court affirmed an injunc-
tion against teaching an elective class on the “Science of Creative Intelligence
Transcendental Meditation” in New Jersey public high schools on the grounds
that doing so amounted to an “establishment of religion.”32
Mindfulness meditation is surpassing TM for inclusion in public schools.
The Association for Mindfulness in Education (AME) is a self-described “col-
laborative association of organizations and individuals working together to
provide support for mindfulness training as a component of K-12 education.”
Mindfulness seems conducive to classroom learning given the AME’s secular
definition: “paying attention here and now with kindness and curiosity.” In
arguing that mindfulness improves teaching, the AME begins with the uncon-
troversial premise that “good teachers share one trait: they are truly present
in the classroom, deeply engaged with their students and their subject.” The
AME implies that mindfulness makes teachers “present” and “engaged,” qual-
ities that seem necessary to good teaching. The AME asserts that mindful-
ness helps students “focus and pay attention” so that they are “calmer and the
class accomplishes more than on days when mindfulness is not practiced.”
The claim sounds intuitive, since students who are not paying attention learn
less. The AME reasons that since good teachers are present and engaged, and
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 173

mindfulness makes teachers present and engaged, mindfulness makes good

teachers. Since students learn more when they are calmer and more focused,
and mindfulness makes students calmer and more focused, mindfulness
makes better students. These conclusions do not, however, follow from the
premises, since there is no evidence of a causal relationship. To assuage con-
cerns about religious establishment, the AME insists that “mindfulness prac-
tice does not depend on or interfere with any religion, cultural context or belief
system. Mindfulness can be completely secular.” The AME notes the entrance
of mindfulness into secular businesses, hospitals, and schools: “Fortune 500
companies provide mindfulness instruction to their employees to reduce on-
the-job stress, hundreds of hospitals refer patients to courses in Mindfulness-
Based Stress Reduction to develop skills to cope with physical and emotional
pain, and dozens of schools (private and public) across the country are using
mindfulness practices to help their students succeed.” Readers might infer
that secular institutions would not endorse mindfulness if it were not secular.33
Public schools are also adding yoga to the school day. The “Yoga Ed.” pro-
gram was introduced into Aspen, Colorado, and Los Angeles, California, pub-
lic school systems by Tara Guber, wife of movie producer Peter Guber (whose
films include Batman). By 2011, one hundred fifty schools in twenty-seven
states and eight other countries had adopted Yoga Ed., and seven hundred
public-school teachers were certified to teach yoga in their classrooms. Crucial
to Guber’s success was distancing yoga from religion. She argued before
school boards that “this is not a religious-, dogma- or faith-based program.
We don’t chant or recite specific principles or philosophy. It is not connected
to any belief system.” In order to overcome resistance from “fundamentalist
Baptists” on school boards, Guber removed religious language, for instance,
replacing samadhi with “oneness,” meditation with “time in,” and pranayama
with “bunny breathing.” As one of Guber’s followers suggested during a 2002
school-board dispute, “semantics is all we are talking about. We can change
a few words and make it all happen [i.e., get the curriculum approved].” And
this is exactly what Guber did.34
After the Yoga Ed. controversy had died down, Guber revealed her motives
in a 2004 interview with Hinduism Today. The article is titled “Tara’s Yoga for
Kids: One Noble Soul Takes on the Public School System and Wins a Vedic
Victory.” Guber confided to her interviewer that she had been disingenuous in
presenting yoga as nonreligious as a necessary condition for getting it into the
school system. She expressed confidence that the practice of yoga, whatever
its components are called, would “go within, shift consciousness and alter
beliefs.” Since participating classroom teachers receive yoga instruction at
local studios before being certified to teach Yoga Ed., teachers “undergo some
174 the healing gods

degree of personal transformation that would enable them to convey, primar-

ily through example, the deeper and more meaningful experience of yoga to
their students in class.” Thus, getting yoga in the K–12 schoolroom door, even
minus Hindu language, constituted a “Vedic victory.”35
Yoga is also taught on college campuses. Brad teaches for-credit yoga at a
public university. When he claims that yoga is “not religion,” what he means
is that yoga is a “more complete system than many religions tend to be.” Yoga
is more, not less, than religion. Although Brad denies requiring students
to experience yoga “through a religious lens,” in his view, yoga and religion
“come from the same source,” and yoga is the “hub for all Eastern religions.”
Brad elaborated on the hub notion in an interview by saying that “yoga can be
thought of as the energy surrounding all gods.” Brad’s course syllabus includes
instructions on how to practice mindfulness meditation, which he recom-
mends to students as the “core” of yoga and the “best way to appreciate the
sacredness of everything.” Yoga the College Way identifies the “core” purpose of
asanas and meditation as “salvation, enlightenment, or union with Brahman,
the Divine,” goals that the author admits are “inappropriate for a public school
setting.” The text proposes that university yoga instructors should describe
asana as a “pose” with physical benefits and meditation as “‘positive thinking,’
stress reduction and/or relaxation techniques.” Professing that yoga’s “spiri-
tual paths can be followed or bypassed,” the textbook explains how to meditate
using the syllable “Om.” The “written word ‘om’ is a very powerful object at
which to gaze. It visually represents the divine, but also conjures up the sound
of the divine.” Om is a mantra, a “sacred sound repeated to bring one to a
higher state of awareness of God,” and has an “essence that has divine, cosmic
energy, giving it special power. It reflects on a specific deity with a certain
meter or rhythm.” This language goes beyond description to teach students
how to follow yoga’s “spiritual paths.” Such crossings of informational/inspi-
rational boundaries raise questions about whether yoga is being—or can be—
taught in public schools without establishing religion, an issue considered in
the concluding chapter below.36
Hospitals present CAM as integrative medicine. The American Hospital
Association reports that 42 percent of U.S. hospitals offered CAM in 2010, tri-
pling since 2000. Some of the most prestigious hospitals—Duke University in
Durham, North Carolina; M. D. Anderson in Houston, Texas; the University
of California at San Francisco; and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
in New York City—have integrative medical centers. The University of
Massachusetts Medical Center Stress Reduction Clinic teaches mindfulness
meditation and yoga. Boston’s Beth Israel Hospital has an integrative-heal-
ing wing that fosters a “Zen” environment. The Cancer Treatment Centers of
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 175

America have a Naturopathic Medicine Department focused on “whole-body

wellness, including the immune system, digestion, sleep, energy levels, diet,
exercise and spirituality”; services include Chinese medicine, acupuncture,
homeopathy, hypnotherapy, and biofeedback. Major health providers, such as
Kaiser Permanente, offer discounted rates on yoga, massage, acupuncture,
and chiropractic.37
Hospital administrators added CAM because market surveys show that
patients want holistic care. Eighty-five percent of hospitals offering CAM cite
patient demand as a rationale, compared with 70 percent claiming clinical
effectiveness. Former CEO of Beth Israel Hospital Matt Fink explains, “If hos-
pitals don’t get involved in these kinds of programs they will lose patients
because patients will go elsewhere.” In an economically precarious health mar-
ket, conventional providers must appeal to patients or lose to competitors.38
Offering CAM in conventional medical settings, especially when standard
medical insurance covers costs, enhances CAM’s perceived medical legiti-
macy, creating a positive feedback loop that further increases demand. The
Mayo Clinic identifies meditation as a medical, instead of a religious, practice
by noting that “individuals are usually referred by their doctor to the medita-
tion program” and that in the Mayo Clinic program, “a physician” teaches
how to meditate—in person or downloadable as an iPod application. The AYA
Web site advertises that “many physicians now recommend Yoga practice to
patients at risk for heart disease, as well as those with back pain, arthritis,
depression, and other chronic conditions.” A national survey found that 21
percent of people who used yoga as a CAM therapy in 2002 did so because a
conventional medical professional recommended it. A college student inter-
viewed, Rachel, recalled feeling disconcerted when a massage therapist bal-
anced her energies, because the practice seemed spiritual; but when a medical
doctor prescribed massage administered by a physical therapist, the context
made the massage seem medically legitimate. Seeking to put patients like
Rachel at ease, CAM backer Kay Koontz suggests that “if you are considering
trying some form of energy medicine, a good place to start is at a university-
or hospital-based center for complementary medicine. These centers typically
offer the services of practitioners who have formal training and certification
by a national membership organization.” Labeled energy “medicine” and dis-
pensed by hospital-based, certified providers, CAM appears comparable to
conventional medicine.39
Fitness centers portray martial arts as a distinctive brand of self-defense,
exercise, or sport—one surrounded by the mystique of cultivating extraor-
dinary physical and spiritual power. During the 1970s and 1980s, English-
dubbed Hong Kong and Hollywood films introduced Americans to kung fu
176 the healing gods

and ninjas, generating curiosity and fascination. Hong Kong actors Bruce Lee
and Jackie Chan and European-American Chuck Norris (an Air Force veteran
who learned martial arts in Korea and an outspoken Christian) became cul-
tural icons. Martial arts found a niche among youth and children through
films such as The Karate Kid (1984) and animated series such as Chuck Norris:
Karate Commandos (1986), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987), and Pokémon
(1990s), alongside related comic books, video games, action figures, trading
cards, and cereal-box advertisements. More indirectly, the Star Wars series
(1977–2005) disseminated mystical ideas of the “Force” as “an energy field
created by all living things” that “binds the galaxy together”; one of the great-
est Jedi warriors is named “Qui-Gon Jinn,” which sounds very much like
“qigong.”40
Martial arts have become as American as baseball. Market researchers esti-
mated in 2002 that more than 18 million Americans, including more than
3 million children and 5.5 million teenagers, had participated in martial arts
in the past year. Of the 5 percent of Americans who practice martial arts, 28
percent affirm that they do so “every chance they get.” Men are slightly more
likely than women to participate (52 percent versus 48 percent of the group).
Asian-Americans and European-Americans join at approximately equal rates,
but African-Americans (7 percent of this group) are more likely to be involved.
Teenagers participate at higher rates than their parents (25 percent of boys,
22 percent of girls), as do children ages six to eleven (13 percent). Sixty-nine
percent of karate-practicing teens also did yoga in the past year.41
The buffet of martial-arts classes available at gyms and public schools
offers something for every demographic, including youth, the elderly, self-
sufficient women, and muscular men. Whereas karate is marketed as teach-
ing youth self-defense skills, t’ai chi provides gentle exercise for the elderly.
Women who are like tae kwon do practitioner Emily Culpepper find self-
defense training physically and spiritually empowering; when a woman living
in a “patriarchal world . . . realizes fully that she could fight back if ever she
were attacked, she is experiencing the power of her re-being. . . . the oneness of
my body/mind/soul” (see figure 7.2). People also identify martial arts as “com-
bat sports, ” in which combatants use “fighting techniques according to a set
of prearranged rules.” By this definition, martial arts are ideologically neutral
competitive sports rather than philosophy, religion, or simple violence. Judo
was recognized as an Olympic sport for men in 1964 and for women in 1988.
Promoters portray judo as a sport that “demands a lot of the athlete . . . glyco-
lytic energy production in energy bursts as well as the need for an aerobic
capacity to maintain activity.” The label combat sports legitimizes the nearly
unrestrained violence of mixed martial arts (MMA), a name coined in 1995.
 How Did CAM Become Mainstream? 177

Before the 2000s, MMA was banned across the United States because of its
violence. Today the sport is legal in most states and best known through the
pay-per-view Ultimate Fighting Championship.42

Conclusion
CAM did not become mainstream by chance. Consumers wanted holistic
care for body, mind, and spirit and did not find it in hospitals or churches.
Market-savvy CAM publicists advertised techniques to alleviate fears of the
costs of modernity and to promise practical health benefits such as physi-
cal fitness and stress reduction, while downplaying religious rationales—at
least, when communicating with administrators and beginning practitioners.
Promotional campaigns appealed to diverse constituencies: relieving suffering
of those in chronic pain or desperately ill, helping those harried by busy rou-
tines of modern life to relax, inspiring the already fit to stretch toward optimal
health, equipping CEOs to gain a competitive edge, and socially and spiritually
empowering those with minimal access to political or economic power. Young

figure 7.2 College students practicing tae kwon do and meditation in a public
university gymnasium, 2011. (Courtesy Erin Garvey)
178 the healing gods

and old, men and women, people of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds
all found CAM products that were just for them. As CAM spread virtually
everywhere, with distinctive goods and services targeted to each subculture,
it became more and more likely that everyone would try at least something.
Equally as significant as intentional marketing is the unintentional logic
of the market. Selling CAM alongside other commodities makes CAM seem
secular rather than religious. As consumers spend billions of dollars on CAM
annually, the economic value of CAM boosts its secular status, and secular
status in turn powers the growth of CAM industries. Workers’ compensation
and insurance investigations discovered that CAM can save insurers money,
because—regardless of whether CAM produces specific benefits—people who
use CAM visit conventional doctors less frequently and request fewer drugs or
medical procedures. Although CAM use may have reduced prescription-drug
spending, American consumers spent $17 billion on dietary supplements in
2000. The most common approach within the CAM rubric is use of “nonvi-
tamin/nonmineral natural products,” employed by 18 percent of Americans
in 2007. Consumers who have positive experiences with one form of CAM
are more likely to try other products that share the CAM label. In effect, every
option branded as CAM appears more normal, and once-obscure CAM modal-
ities enter the mainstream. When First Lady Nancy Reagan visited an astrolo-
gist in the 1980s, it made national news headlines. Today few people raise an
eyebrow when celebrities do yoga, receive acupuncture, or select homeopathic
options. The more people can think of examples of CAM usage, the less CAM
seems out of the ordinary, and this encourages still more people to give CAM
a try.43
The processes through which CAM became widely available for sampling
in secular settings can be better understood through a case study. Chapter 8
depicts the integration of energy medicine into the conventional health-care
system.
 8
Energy Medicine
How Her Karma Ran Over His Dogma

marcia backos asks rhetorically, “Should Christians Practice Reiki?” on the

ChristianReiki.org home page. Conceding that Reiki has an “Eastern origin,”
Backos attests that Reiki helps Christians to “follow more closely the teach-
ings and examples of Jesus healing the sick.” In typical evangelical fashion,
Backos cites Bible verses, such as John 14:12 and 1 Corinthians 12: 7–9, that
enjoin Christians to follow Jesus by healing. Backos appeals to the “long tradi-
tion” in the Christian church of adapting “many and varied practices” from
popular culture—such as contemporary music and dance—to “come closer
to God.” In deciding whether to adopt cultural resources, the priesthood of
all believers should gather information that is “accurate and gives an honest
and fair description” and pray “for guidance.” Backos suggests that the best
source of information about Reiki is “those who have given or experienced
Reiki,” rather than Reiki’s critics. The article concludes, “Scripture clearly
indicates that healing is something appropriate for Christians to be involved
with. Christians who have a solid foundation in their faith know that God will
always protect and guide them.” Backos reasons that since the Bible teaches
healing through laying on of hands and Reiki also teaches healing through
laying on of hands, Reiki is consonant with the Bible. Since her readers pre-
sumably want to see themselves as having a “solid foundation in their faith,”
Backos represents fear of Reiki as signifying weak faith and acceptance of
Reiki as evidence of solid faith.1
The case study of energy medicine—a broad category that includes
Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, and Healing Touch—illumines some of the pro-
cesses through which CAM entered the secular and Christian mainstreams.
Affirming that energy medicine is spiritual and scientific but not religious,
180 the healing gods

providers use treatment and training practices inspired by Buddhist, Hindu,

and Western metaphysical traditions. This chapter explains how practitioners
accessed the conventional health-care system and Christian clienteles through
two channels. First, providers disguised the metaphysical aspects of their
practices when interacting with hospital administrators and patients in pain.
Second, promoters appealed to female nurses already within the medical sys-
tem who felt disempowered by a male-dominated medical hierarchy.

Reiki: Religious or Spiritual?

The term Reiki, from the Japanese Rei, which can be translated as “spirit,”
“sacred,” or “Universal Life,” and ki or “energy,” is often described as “uni-
versal life energy.” There has been much debate among researchers, practi-
tioners, and consumers about whether Reiki is nondoctrinaire spirituality or
has religious roots and, if the latter, whether roots are Buddhist or Christian.
Despite contested origins and disavowals of religion, modern treatment and
training draw explicitly on Buddhist and metaphysical concepts that fit a broad
definition of religion.2

Origins
There is not a single, unified Reiki tradition. There are multiple lineages, each
of which claims authenticity and authority. Some practitioners believe that
Reiki originated in Tibetan or Indian Buddhism more than twenty-five hun-
dred years ago. Others trace origins to Mikao Usui’s (1865–1926) innovations
in Japan in 1922. Details of Usui’s biography are contested, but according to
some accounts, Usui was a Japanese Buddhist monk who lived in a Zen mon-
astery. Before developing his method, Usui had reputedly studied Chinese
qigong and Buddhist, Taoist, and possibly Shinto healing, and he had been
traveling around to Buddhist monasteries in Tibet and Nepal. Such religious
combinations were not exceptional or generally looked down upon in Usui’s
social context. By contrast with evangelical Christians in the United States,
who seek to exclude other traditions in a quest for religious purity, Usui and
his peers valued inclusion of elements from multiple traditions as enrich-
ing. Reiki can be viewed as one of a number of new religious movements
that have developed in Japan since the nineteenth century, building upon
preexisting beliefs and practices and borrowing, combining, and augment-
ing them in novel ways. Tradition has it that Usui was ending a twenty-one-
day fasting retreat on Japan’s Mount Kurama (site of Kurama-dera Temple, a
 Energy Medicine 181

popular destination for performance of ascetic practices) when he received a

spiritual revelation or “shamanistic ecstasy” during which the Reiki symbols
burned through his body. Usui passed on this Reiki “attunement,” or spiritual
empowerment, to Chujiro Hayashi, who, in turn, attuned Hawayo Takata, a
first-generation Japanese-American woman from Hawaii who was at the time
visiting relatives in Japan. Takata has been credited with bringing Reiki to the
United States and attuning the first twenty-five American Reiki masters.3
Those who wish to disassociate Reiki from Buddhism (to argue that the
practice is religiously neutral) emphasize that Usui’s method “came to him
spontaneously” during his spiritual experience. Other healers affirm that
the Reiki symbols—several of which are Japanese Kanji characters put to
ritual use—have been employed by multiple Buddhist sects for centuries.
The Reiki attunement rituals resemble a series of four Buddhist empower-
ment initiations in which teachers transfer energy to students. The Buddhist
Vase Empowerment, Mystical Empowerment, and Divine Knowledge
Empowerment remove karmic obstructions, allow students to visualize spe-
cific deities, open the flow of ki, and give mantras their effectiveness; the
Absolute Empowerment heals consciousness.4
In order to establish distance from Buddhist symbols and rituals, certain
Reiki healers developed a founding myth of Christian origins. The story, which
has morphed into several versions, goes that Usui was a Japanese Christian
minister, a Christian professor of theology at Doshisha University, a Christian
minister working at a Christian seminary, the president of a Christian school,
the head of a Christian boys school in Japan, or at least a Buddhist who “lived
with a Christian family and had Christian friends.” The traditional account is
that “one day some of the students asked him if he believed in the miracles
which Jesus did (healing, etc.). Being a Christian minister he answered ‘Yes.’
They asked if he knew how Jesus had done this. ‘No’ he said.” Disturbed to
realize that “he had accepted the beliefs of Christianity without investigating
them for himself,” Usui undertook a lifelong quest to discover how Jesus had
healed. He reportedly traveled to the United States and spent seven years at
the University of Chicago earning a doctorate in Christian theology before
traveling to India to study Sanskrit sacred texts and returning to Japan to study
scriptures of Japanese Buddhism.5
Some researchers deny that any element of the Christian origins story
can be defended. There is evidence that Usui was a Buddhist monk. There
is no evidence that he ever worked at a Christian school or associated with
Christians. He never enrolled at the University of Chicago and probably never
visited India. Yet, as one Reiki promoter explains, the myth was “probably cre-
ated . . . to give Reiki more appeal to people in the West,” where Christianity is
182 the healing gods

dominant. Those invested in making Reiki acceptable to Christians, such as

self-identified Christian Reiki masters Bruce and Katherine Epperly, maintain
that the Christian version “still contains an eternal truth that transcends a
purely factual record.”6

Treatment
Because the history and nature of Reiki are disputed, generalizations about
how Reiki is practiced must allow room for exceptions. Reiki may be per-
formed on oneself or another person. During treatments, clients may lie
or sit down. The practitioner often begins a session with her (a majority of
American practitioners are women) hands in “praying hands” or gassho posi-
tion at the chest or face while mentally focusing in preparation (see figure 8.1).
She moves her hands over various parts of the client’s body, applying a series
of up to twenty-seven hand positions, each held for several minutes. These
hand positions “cover the main chakra centers and the main meridian chan-
nels that the life force flows through.” Both clients and practitioners report
that Reiki touch feels “warm, even hot, and deeply soothing.” Hand positions

figure 8.1 Reiki healer beginning session in gassho praying hands position,
2011. (Courtesy Erin Garvey)
 Energy Medicine 183

may be held between one and three inches above the body, “in the Aura with-
out physical contact” (see figure 8.2). A full treatment can take between forty-
five and ninety minutes and may be repeated weekly or daily. Practitioners
may end a session by thanking their “Spiritual Focus” for the gift of Reiki.7
Reiki may be performed at a distance in a practice called “beaming.”
Distance healing requires Reiki symbols. The practitioner might “draw them
with your hand or third eye and mentally say the power and connection symbol
name/mantra,” repeating the mantra three times. The “third eye” is the “seat
of the will and of clairvoyance” and provides “intuitive insight” into “areas of
blockage or congestion.” Other approaches to distance healing include “draw-
ing the symbols over a photo with the intention of sending Reiki to the person
represented,” or using a “teddy bear or doll as a proxy,” or holding a piece of
paper with the person’s name on it while sending Reiki. Some practitioners
“ask Guides or helping Deva [Nature Spirits] to do the treatment as the prac-
titioner holds the connection.” Peggy Jentoft, a Reiki master who practices in
Los Angeles, California, and has a prominent Internet presence, affirms that
Crystal Deva, Flower Deva, and color and sound energy are usually present

figure 8.2 Reiki position in the patient’s aura targeted at foot pain. This treat-
ment session also addressed goals of weight loss and guidance with intuition on
relationships, 2011. (Courtesy Erin Garvey)
184 the healing gods

during her treatments. Jentoft also reports that during distance healing, she
can “feel a ‘Reiki beam’ go from my hands and/or heart, etheric heart, crown
and third eye [chakras], to the person.” Distance is not considered a barrier,
because Reiki travels energetically and does not require a physical conduit.
Some practitioners have extended this logic to imply that Reiki “attunements”
(or initiations) can be given at a distance, for instance, over the telephone or
the Internet or by auction on eBay, or that individuals can perform “self-attun-
ements” with help from Web sites, books, or DVDs. Many Reiki masters reject
the validity of distant or self-attunements (which, if accepted, would result in
loss of status and income for formally trained Reiki masters).8
Reiki may be directed toward animals, plants, or inanimate objects. Jentoft
suggests that “cut flowers can be given a Reiki treatment which may help to
preserve them longer.” Jentoft has “given Reiki to wounded Dragonflies and
they seemed to love it. Trees are an amazing reservoir of universal energy
and often they respond to receiving Reiki energy by giving energy back to the
giver. So go and hug a tree and feel them ‘blessing’ you. Some trees are really
surprised to have people offer to give them anything.” Reiki can also be given
to machines and used in “Earth healing” and “treatment of world events.”
Reiki masters Anne Charlish and Angela Robertshaw’s book Secrets of Reiki
(2001) recommends giving pets daily treatments, giving Reiki to house plants,
and using distance healing on various rooms in the house “to help the energy
flow.” One can aid “every meal to enrich you spiritually as well as physically by
giving your food reiki,” and “if you are offering a special gift or keepsake to a
loved one, treat it with reiki first.” Such practices reflect a belief that Reiki is
the energy that enlivens all reality, both animate and inanimate.9

Training
Teachers pass Reiki on to students. Instruction at one time consisted of three
degrees, culminating in the designation “Reiki master.” Some instructors
added a fourth degree to distinguish a level III Reiki master from a level IV
“teaching” Reiki master who is ready to take students. In the early twentieth
century, students had to wait at least six months between Reiki I and II and at
least a year between Reiki II and III. Today some instructors offer workshops
that progress through all three levels in one weekend.10
Diane Stein, a popular Reiki master who offers condensed classes to stu-
dents who fly to her Florida headquarters, justifies her approach. Stein makes
it easy for students to progress through all three Reiki levels quickly, because it
is “crucial for Reiki to become universal” and “for as many people as possible
to become Reiki teaching Masters.” This is because Reiki assists people (and
 Energy Medicine 185

animals) in “going beyond the mind to the Buddha Nature (Goddess within)
in all of us . . . Oneness, You are Goddess,” or “ascension.” Once this state is
achieved, “this releases the Be-ing from the wheel of incarnation,” because all
“Earth karma has been resolved.” Then, “when enough people have cleared
their karma and attained enlightenment, a critical mass will be reached,” and
“everyone will be granted it. There will be no more karma for anyone, and
the Earth itself will receive ascension.” Although the concept of karma may
implicitly blame suffering people for making choices that led to their predica-
ments, attributing problems to karma offers hope that individuals can make
better choices to escape karmic burdens.11
Reiki I, if offered by itself, is usually taught as a weekend seminar. Students
learn a brief history of Reiki (sometimes including its allegedly Christian ori-
gins) and the basic hand positions. Instructors may opt for vague language in
describing Reiki to beginners. Jentoft’s Reiki Level One Manual introduces the
practice simply as a “natural system of energy healing” that “helps to cleanse
the body of energetic and physical toxins.” The climax of Reiki I is an initia-
tion ceremony during which the Reiki master gives each student individually a
series of four “attunements” (sometimes condensed into a single attunement).
Reiki veterans understand attunement to be a “sacred ritual” that “opens” the
student to become a channel for the flow of healing energy.12
Different Reiki masters use various procedures in performing attune-
ments. Some invite “angels, ascended masters, guides,” place a “healing
grid or gateway in the room,” or use a pendulum to analyze energy patterns.
Attunements sometimes involve rituals of “smudging with sage, chanting,
bell ringing, drumming, speaking in tongues,” or “casting a circle.” A lit flame
from a candle attracts the “Light and invites Reiki guides and other Light
Be-ings to help with the healing.” Standing on sea salt helps the Reiki master
go farther “psychically since the grounding is your safety line when going out
of body.” Masters may ask an initiate to “bring his/her hands together as when
praying . . . close your eyes and go within.” Masters “activate the Reiki energy”
by drawing or visualizing the four Reiki symbols over initiates in the master’s
own aura, silently stating an intent to attune the student and repeating the
mantras that represent the symbols. The silent repetition of mantras serves
to “create an energetic vibration that helps balance and realign the chakras
and alter the flow of the body’s energy.” The master may touch the student’s
shoulders and “smooth the aura three times from head to feet.” In a “crown to
crown attunement,” energy flows through the teacher’s and student’s “crown
Chakras . . . connecting the energies, permanently enabling the student to
run Reiki.” This happens as the “Rei or universal energy makes adjustments
in the student’s chakras and energy pathways to accommodate the ability to
186 the healing gods

channel Reiki through symbols.” During attunement, “the Master’s aura is

merged with the student’s for the time of the attunement. While this occurs,
some piece of karma is removed and released from the student.” Those receiv-
ing attunement may “briefly experience past lives from when they had Reiki
before, [or] see their Goddess in front of them.” After attunement, students
can practice Reiki on themselves, family, and friends.13
During Reiki II, often offered as a weekend seminar, students learn sym-
bols and connected mantras and receive an attunement to open a “special
channel in the mind” to facilitate “intuitive” ability to “communicate with
the subconscious mind of the client” and with the “client’s Higher Self.”
Reiki II includes “advanced Reiki techniques,” such as using symbols for
distance healing, meditation to enhance psychic abilities, spirit guidance
from “Guides and angels,” and crystals, on the premise that “even rocks pos-
sess consciousness.” Early Reiki masters regarded symbols as “sacred” and
did not reveal them to anyone not initiated into Reiki II. The symbols are,
however, no longer a well-preserved secret, because certain Reiki masters
published the symbols and instructions for how to draw them (important,
since few U.S. practitioners know how to write Japanese characters). Jentoft
includes the symbols in her online Reiki manuals because she comes from a
Buddhist tradition that considers it a duty to show “sacred texts to people in
order to plant a seed for future enlightenment.” Likewise, Diane Stein’s book
Essential Reiki (1995), which has sold three hundred thousand copies, reveals
the symbols.14
There are at least four major Reiki symbols and mantras. These are power
(Cho Ku Rei), mental/emotional (Sei He Ki), distance (Hon Sha Ze Sho Nen),
and master (Dai Ku Myo). The power symbol, as interpreted by certain prac-
titioners, “calls in higher universal energy” and “signifies the highest place,
that which humans cannot reach which is the source of Reiki.” This symbol
is sometimes called the “Light Switch,” or “‘Put the power here,’ or ‘God is
here,’” because it allows one to “focus power in one spot, by calling in the
energy of the Goddess/Universe.” The power symbol may be used to “clear
rooms and crystals and to charge food and water.” The mental/emotional
symbol is used to “facilitate emotional and mental healing and to assist self
programming and treating addictions and habits.” This symbol represents
“Protection, Purification, Clearing/Cleansing, Releasing Attachments,” “‘The
Earth and Sky come together; as Above, so Below,’ . . . ‘Key to the universe’ or
‘Man and God becoming one.’” The distance symbol, which is empowered by
speaking it aloud, is for “sending the energies hands off, for absentee healing
and treating Issues from the past including past life issues,” releasing karma,
and projecting healing into the future. This is possible because “when you rise
 Energy Medicine 187

above the physical, all time happens at once.” The distance symbol represents
“no past, no present, no future,” “‘Open the Book of Life and now read,’” “‘The
Goddess in me salutes the Goddess in you’” or “‘The Buddha in me reaches
out to the Buddha in you to promote enlightenment and peace.’” Reiki II may
include only the first three symbols (possibly alongside additional symbols),
reserving the master symbol for Reiki III.15
The master symbol transmits Reiki attunements and may be drawn at the
beginning and end of distance healings “to open and close the receiver’s aura.”
This symbol “increases the intuitive and psychic awareness,” activates the “7th
chakra,” and “has its value in the function of connecting to sacred being and
becoming part of it.” The master symbol (which can be translated as “great
shining brightness”) represents “Self empowerment, Intuition, Creativity,
and Spiritual connection,” the “Goddess’s double spirit,” “Buddha Nature,”
“enlightenment,” or “the entire universe.” Together, the Reiki symbols reflect
“levels of mind” or “nonduality of mind and object and the emptiness from
ego that achieves the highest level of the end of the Path of Enlightenment
(Buddhist nirvana)”—ideas commonly associated with religions.16
The last element of Reiki II, at least as taught by Stein, is instruction in
“Power Exercises” similar to those taught in some advanced yoga and qigong
classes. Stage One exercises “teach you to channel Ki energy,” focusing on
“spiritual awareness and connection of the spiritual and physical through the
controlled transmission of energy,” and bringing “unity of body, mind, and
spirit.” Stage Two exercises pass Reiki attunements. Both exercise sequences
channel spiritual energy through sexual means.17
For Stage One Power Exercises, practitioners should be “skyclad,” or nude.
A woman should “sit with legs open, so that you can press the heel of one
foot against your vagina and clitoris. Use a firm, steady pressure. If you can-
not bend your body to do this, use a tennis ball or larger crystal to create the
pressure. You may experience sexual stimulation or orgasm.” Next, “rub your
hands together, creating friction and heat.” Then “place your hands on your
breasts, feeling the heat from your hands,” and “move your breasts slowly up
and out in upward circular motions.” A man should “rub your palms together
rapidly, raising heat and energy in your hands.” Next, “cup the testicles with
your right hand so that the palm completely covers them. Do not squeeze, use
only slight pressure and the heat in your palm.” Then “place the palm of your
left hand at the Hara [chakra], an inch below the navel. Using slight pressure,
and feeling a growing warmth from your hand, rotate your left hand clockwise
in a circle 81 times.” Finally, “when the energy connection is complete, you will
feel a chill or tingling move through the spine to the head, similar to orgasm.”
In this rendering, spiritual and sexual energy merge.18
188 the healing gods

Stage Two Power Exercises require learning the “Hui Yin position” to con-
nect the “Kundalini and Hara Line energy channels and their chakra systems.”
For a woman, the Hui Yin position resembles “Kegel exercises” to enhance
sexual performance or prepare for childbirth. One can hold this position of the
perineum long enough to pass Reiki attunements by “drawing-in” the muscles
of the anus rather than the vagina. Men also use the anus. One should place
the tongue tip “on the roof of your mouth, in the groove behind the teeth on the
hard palate” and “take a deep breath and hold it.” In passing attunements, one
maintains this position for two or three minutes with breath held and then for
as long as possible without holding the breath. Holding the perineum and the
tongue in position “connects the Governing and Conception Vessel meridians,
creating a closed energy circuit.” This diverts energy “through the Hara Line”
and transmits it “through your body to release in your breath and hands.” One
should “feel a charge of energy travel through the Microcosmic Orbit/Hara
Line.” One may “sense the moving figure 8 of the Egyptian Infinity symbol”
and “experience sexual arousal or orgasm, or become multi-orgasmic.” Reiki
masters hold this Hui Yin position while passing spiritual attunements.19
Reiki III involves further instruction, often one-on-one, and a final
attunement. This highest attunement “marks a shift from the ego and self to
a feeling of oneness with the universal life-force energy.” Stein tells her stu-
dents—who develop from novices into Reiki masters in a single weekend—
that they are fully prepared to pass attunements. The reason is that “your Reiki
guides, Goddess, or whatever Light Being works most closely with you will
play a very large part in your attunements. It is she who passes them, in fact—
you are only doing the hand motions. You will become very aware of a guided
presence working through you when you do the attunement process.” For
this reason, it is important to “make space in your healing work for psychic
information and guidance.” Reiki masters should draw the symbols “exactly
and correctly, with the lines in precise order.” But even if the developing Reiki
master makes a “mistake in drawing the symbols, the Light Be-ing will correct
it. ‘We fix’ is what I have heard so many times.” The Reiki master is only a
conduit for the intelligent flow of life-force energy.20

Defining Reiki as Spiritual but Not Religious

Despite referring to Buddhist and Western metaphysical concepts when per-
forming Reiki treatment and training, practitioners claim that Reiki is spiri-
tual but not religious. This distinction identifies Reiki as a worldwide practice
that will not interfere with anyone’s religion and distances Reiki from negative
connotations of religious “dogmatism.” Charlish and Robertshaw attest that
 Energy Medicine 189

“Reiki is not a religion and can therefore be practiced by people of different

faiths. Unlike some forms of healing, it has no specific religious dogma asso-
ciated with it. Instead, reiki is about encouraging people to have trust in them-
selves and in the universe.” Jentoft avows that “Reiki is not religious. There is
no dogma involved with Reiki. . . . Being attuned to Reiki does not entail any
conversion or adoption of spiritual beliefs or practices from any religion or
particular set of beliefs. Reiki and other energy healing modes will harmonize
with most spiritual belief systems that allow for the existence of energy work.”
Stein affirms that Reiki is Buddhist but denies that either Reiki or Buddhism
is religion: “Reiki is not a religion, and Buddhism is more a way of thinking, a
philosophy of how to live, than it is a religion.” Reiki is, nevertheless, for Stein
a “very sacred” way to channel energy from the “Goddess/Source.” Each of
these authors articulates a narrow definition of religion—one strongly shaped
by evangelical Protestant assumptions about the primacy of doctrine—and
asserts that Reiki does not fit the definition. The authors nevertheless discuss
Reiki in terms that could be considered religious by broader definitions.21
Although they distance Reiki from religion, promoters affirm that Reiki
energy is not merely physical but spiritual. According to the International
Association of Reiki Professionals, Reiki uses “spiritually guided life force
energy.” Other practitioners say that Reiki “animates all living things, gives
order to our world, and is the underlying creative intelligence of the universe.”
Reiki energy possesses its own “higher intelligence” and “innate wisdom to
guide itself,” so that it “goes wherever most needed in the body and aura.”
The aura extends “two to five feet in most people” and consists of at least
seven layers: etheric, emotional, mental, causal, etheric template, intuitive,
and cosmic. Reiki energy collects in chakras, “energy vortexes that give life to
your energetic body, which is another name for your spiritual body, the part of
you that has eternal life.” It is common to refer to seven chakras: throat, heart,
sacral, root, solar plexus, third eye, and crown. Reiki energy is “sacred . . . a
divine gift,” similar to “the Chinese ling qi; the Indian maha para shakti; and
the Western divine light.” The “many names” of Reiki include “Prana, Mana,
Chi, Ki, Orgone energy, Bioenergetic plasma, Divine breath, Cosmic Pulse,
Vital Fire, among them.” Or “those with an agnostic or atheistic belief system”
may prefer to think of Reiki as “universal, natural, scientific healing energy”
or an “electro-chemical energy system.” Advocates describe Reiki as spiritual
and scientific but not religious.22
Practitioners bolster Reiki’s nonreligious status by charging substantial
fees for treatment and training. People tend to view religion as free or dona-
tion-based but associate fees with professional services. In the 1980s, Reiki
I cost $150 to $250, Reiki II $600 to $1000, and Reiki III $10,000. By 2007,
190 the healing gods

all three degrees could be garnered in a single weekend for $500 to $600. The
number of people learning Reiki grew as fees became more modest. In 1995,
there were seven hundred fifty teaching Reiki masters worldwide, one-third of
whom lived in the United States. Ten years later, there were several thousand
Reiki masters globally. Once credentialed, healers charge for treatments; some
establish sliding fee scales of up to a day’s wages for a single session. Reiki
healers justify charging for their services based on the principle of “exchange.”
The spiritual premise is that “one must give some exchange to receive full ben-
efit and must balance any exchange of energy and that free treatment creates
an unacceptable spiritual debt for the healee.” Requiring a financial commit-
ment forces those seeking healing to “consider how reiki features as a priority
in your life,” producing a “lifelong connection with reiki” (see figure 8.3).23

Therapeutic Touch and Healing

Touch: Metaphysics or Medicine?
By comparison with Reiki, Therapeutic Touch has a relatively brief and uncon-
tested history, and the technique is simple. Dolores Krieger, a professor of

figure 8.3 Tourists travel to Sedona, Arizona, reputed to be a site where spiri-
tual vortexes converge, to explore energy healing at businesses like this one, 2011.
(Photograph by author)
 Energy Medicine 191

nursing at New York University, introduced the term Therapeutic Touch to

the medical community in an article published in the American Journal of
Nursing in 1975. Krieger self-identifies as a Buddhist and attests that she took
ideas from hatha and Tantra yoga, Ayurvedic medicine, Tibetan medicine,
Chinese medicine, and martial arts. Krieger credits Dora Kunz, president
(from 1975 to 1989) of the Theosophical Society in America, with providing a
theoretical foundation and acting as her primary mentor. Theosophy draws on
Freemasonry, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism, and it teaches rein-
carnation, karma, the presence of life and consciousness in all matter, and the
power of thought to affect one’s self and surroundings. All of these ideas can
be found in books by Krieger and Kunz. In addition, researchers trace some
of Krieger’s ideas to mesmerism and claim that Krieger was a Reiki master
before she developed her own technique.24
Although it uses religious concepts, Krieger classifies Therapeutic Touch
as a technique that is spiritual and scientific but not religious. She acknowl-
edges basing her concept of “energy” on the Hindu notion of prana. She
asserts that prana is essentially the same thing as Chinese qi and Egyptian
ka: “the life energy that is vital,” which flows through “nonphysical channels
called nadis” and operates through the “chakra system.” Translating prana
and related concepts for Western audiences, she frames them as scientific
and modern. Krieger argues in her book, Accepting Your Power to Heal (1993):
“According to this body of experiential knowledge [the Rig-Veda, texts impor-
tant in Hinduism], there are three types of energies concerned with health.
These are prana, previously mentioned as vital energy that underlies the
organization of the life process; kundalini, which is concerned with creativ-
ity in the sense approximated by the psychological term libido; and energy
that is somewhat akin to the Greek concept of eros, or love. The Therapeutic
Touch process is primarily concerned with prana, although all three subsets
of human energy are closely integrated.” The reference to “experiential knowl-
edge” implies that Vedic principles have been empirically proven to be true
through centuries of application. The religiously neutral term “creativity” and
the modern psychological term “libido” domesticate the sexual connotations
of kundalini. The invocation of Greek “eros” hints that Hindu ideas parallel
Western intellectual traditions.25
The energy manipulated in Therapeutic Touch is spiritual. The basic the-
ory is that human beings are “open systems” of “energy fields” that are both
“psychic” and “physical.” Because people “do not stop at their skins,” healers
can engage in the “human-energy-field interaction” that connects the “heal-
er’s” and “healee’s” fields through the “wave phenomena.” Although scientists
do not recognize the existence of nonphysical energy fields, Kunz argues that
192 the healing gods

“these fields (like all those known to science) permeate space. Each individ-
ual is a localization (concentration) of energy within these universal fields.
Moreover, these individual local fields interact with one another, being part
of one whole, dynamic, and interdependent system.” Using this interdepen-
dence, the “healing act” consists of a “human energy transfer.” Krieger asks
students to “conceive of the healer as an individual whose health gives him
access to an overabundance of prana and whose strong sense of commitment
and intention to help ill people gives him or her a certain control over the pro-
jection of this vital energy. The act of healing, then, would entail the channel-
ing of this energy flow by the healer for the well-being of the sick individual.”
Kunz affirms that she establishes “communication” with “angels and fairies”
when channeling energy. She advises that healers incorporate “the recording
of dreams, the drawing of mandalas [circular pictures considered sacred in
Hindu and Buddhist traditions], and divination by means of consulting the
I Ching,” an early Chinese text consisting of sixty-four symbolic hexagrams
based on yin-yang that function as oracles.26
Recognizing the dominance of Christianity in American culture, Krieger
advertised her method as an extension of the biblical practice of laying on
of hands but superior because it is nonreligious and scientific. In Krieger’s
words, “Therapeutic Touch derives from, but is not the same as, the ancient
art of the laying-on of hands.” The “major difference” is that “Therapeutic
Touch has no religious base as does the laying-on of hands; it is a conscious,
intentional act; it is based on research findings; and Therapeutic Touch does
not require a declaration of faith from the healee (patient) for it to be effec-
tive.” Krieger simultaneously invokes a Christian framework and distances
her method from negative associations of religion or “faith healing,” appeal-
ing instead to the scientific authority of “research findings.” By replacing
“faith” with “intention,” Krieger signals that practitioners do not need to hold
any particular religious beliefs. Yet in order to perform Therapeutic Touch as
a “conscious, intentional act,” the practitioner must believe that subtle energy
exists and can be redirected.27
Despite the name (and regardless of allusions to laying on of hands),
Therapeutic Touch does not require physical contact. The healer touches the
patient’s “ether or vital layer of energy,” two to four inches from the body.
This is different from Reiki, which includes both physical and spiritual touch.
Also unlike Reiki, practitioners always perform Therapeutic Touch on another
person, rather than themselves, other life forms, or inanimate objects, and
they always do so proximally rather than at a distance. Training to practice
Therapeutic Touch is less complicated or hierarchical than for Reiki, making
it an easier addition to a crowded nursing curriculum. There are no separate
 Energy Medicine 193

degrees, no ceremonial attunements, and no distinction between “masters”

and ordinary practitioners. A typical Therapeutic Touch session is briefer than
a Reiki session, usually lasting between five and fifteen minutes—all the time
on-duty nurses might be expected to have available.28
Performing Therapeutic Touch involves a simple, step-by-step protocol.
The first step is “centering.” This is a “meditative perspective,” or “journey
toward one’s inner being,” during which the healer envisions herself and the
healee as a “unitary whole” connected by prana. Centering is, according to
Krieger, “the undeniable source of the empowerment of Therapeutic Touch.”
Step two is “assessment.” The healer places her open palms down several
inches away from the healee’s body and “hand-scans” the energy fields from
head to toe, allowing the “nonphysical structures” of the chakras to be “our
teachers.” Areas of blockage or imbalance can be sensed as heat, cold, tension,
congestion, thickness, heaviness, pressure, emptiness, leadenness, static, or
pins and needles. In step three, “unruffling,” the healer focuses on a compas-
sionate intent to heal while using circular sweeping motions to push energy
away from congested areas, distributing the excess or sweeping it out through
the feet. The healer gets the energy moving, providing “access to a mobile
field” that facilitates “transfer of energy.” A crucial premise is that thoughts,
emotions, and psychic intuitions touch and direct energy. Krieger teaches that
what matters most in delivering an effective treatment is not “where you put
your hands” but “how masterfully you use your mind.” Step four is “modula-
tion,” or repatterning and reordering energy through “application of inten-
tionality,” for instance, by visualizing colors. The fifth step is “re-assessment”
of energy fields to confirm that they feel balanced and symmetrical. Finally,
the healer shakes or washes her hands to remove excess energy. The delinea-
tion of discrete steps operationally defines Therapeutic Touch as a medical
technique rather than a religious ritual, despite the spiritual aspects of each
step in the sequence.29

Marketing Metaphysical Religion as

Mainstream Medicine
When the overtly metaphysical dimensions of Reiki and Therapeutic Touch
are comprehended, the rapid integration of energy medicine into the modern
health-care system presents a puzzle. There are at least two prongs to the solu-
tion. Reiki gained an audience among hospital administrators competing for
patients. Therapeutic Touch and its offspring Healing Touch attracted female
nurses already in the hospital system who desired empowerment in a health-
care hierarchy dominated by male doctors.
194 the healing gods

Winning Over Hospital Administrators

Efforts to market Reiki to hospital administrators as a nonreligious aid to stress
reduction have been intentional, systematic, and successful. The American
Hospital Association reported in 2007 that 15 percent of American hospitals,
a total of eight hundred, offered Reiki. The 2007 National Health Interview
Survey found that 1.2 million adults had used Reiki or another energy therapy
in the past year. The “Center for Reiki Research Including Reiki in Hospitals”
hosts a Web site dedicated to promoting “scientific awareness of Reiki” and
advocating for inclusion in hospitals. The site provides a directory of sev-
enty hospitals, clinics, and hospices that offer Reiki; summarizes published
research; and sells a “Reiki in Hospitals PowerPoint Presentation” (for $25).
The slide show, designed to persuade administrators to integrate Reiki into
hospital care, reviews research and benefits of Reiki and lists “prominent hos-
pitals that have Reiki programs”—suggesting that Reiki is an advanced ther-
apy that the best hospitals offer. A significant feature of the Center for Reiki
Web site is that vague general information pages are easily accessible to the
public. In order to view other pages—including articles written by Reiki heal-
ers for other Reiki healers—it is necessary to register for a membership and
log in. Membership is free, but this hurdle probably discourages the casual
browser, making it less likely that unsympathetic audiences will “listen in” on
in-group conversations.30
An article titled “How We Got Reiki into the Hospital” and posted in a
members-only section of the Center for Reiki Web site, reveals how practitio-
ners introduced Reiki into the Department of Oncology at Women & Infants
Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island. In approaching the administration, two
Reiki healers, Ava Wolf and Janet Wing, presented themselves professionally
by crafting a polished introductory letter and proposal, dressing smartly for
interviews, and submitting recommendation letters and client evaluations.
But they also employed a psychic approach. Unbeknownst to hospital admin-
istrators, Wolf and Wing “used a visual affirmation to strengthen our inner
intention to become active members of the Complementary Care Team. We
each made a collage that included photographs of our faces, which we glued
onto a photograph of the hospital staff. We also included images of material
ease and abundance, directing our energy toward fair compensation for our
services.” They sought to “follow the energy,” go where “the energy calls,”
and “trust the energy” to gain entry. This intuitively led Wolf and Wing to
develop “vocabulary so we could express our healing concepts in medical ter-
minology.” To this end, “we spoke of Reiki’s value as a technique for stress
reduction, defining it as ‘energy nutrition’ and an effective touch therapy. We
 Energy Medicine 195

found that the concept of Mind/Body/Spirit connection was acceptable, but

avoided references to channeling, auras, energy fields, guides, and spirituality.
We endeavored to ‘normalize’ Reiki, to meet pragmatic scientific people on
their own terms.” Wolf and Wing say they also “enhanced our credibility” by
winning approval to count Reiki training for the continuing education units
required of nurses. When describing Reiki to patients, Wolf and Wing “kept
it simple. We introduced ourselves, explained briefly that Reiki might help
them with pain, fatigue, anxiety, post-operative recovery, and the side effects
of chemotherapy.” They did not disclose the spiritual aspects of treatments.
Reiki got into this and many other U.S. hospitals because promoters inten-
tionally truncated explanations of Reiki when introducing it to administrators
and patients.31
In writing for one another, Reiki practitioners offer advice on how to make
Reiki welcome to medical audiences. In an article on “Reiki in Hospitals”
posted in the members-only section of the Center for Reiki Web site, Patricia
Alandydy, a Reiki master, registered nurse, and assistant director of surgical
services at Portsmouth Regional Hospital in New Hampshire specifies that
“in the hospital setting Reiki is presented as a technique which reduces stress
and promotes relaxation, thereby enhancing the body’s natural ability to heal
itself.” Patricia Keene, who succeeded in getting Reiki into the Maine Medical
Center, notes that in describing Reiki to patients, “simple explanations, rather
than technical, were often warranted. One nurse, who offers Reiki whenever
she is able, might say to a patient, ‘I’ve been trained in a technique that can
help you to relax and de-stress and could even help the healing process. It is
a gentle hands-on method.’” ChristianReiki.org author William Rand advises
that in hospitals, “if the issue comes up, it is important to explain that while
Reiki is spiritual in nature, in that love and compassion are an important part
of its practice, it is not a religion and that members of many religious groups
including many Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews use Reiki and find it
compatible with their religious beliefs.” Patricia Miles proposes that “every
time you see the word ‘spiritual,’ substitute ‘vibrational’ and see if it makes
sense.” Miles assures other practitioners that changing terms will not make
the actual practice of Reiki less spiritually powerful, since “these vibrations,
pulsations, or oscillations—whatever you want to call them—are the subtle
form through which we experience Reiki. They are the spirit in spirituality.”
Jane van de Velde, who has a doctorate in nursing, offers advice for how to pub-
lish case reports of Reiki’s effectiveness for medical journals. The practitioner
should “tap into inner guidance when documenting” but restrict one’s termi-
nology to that “commonly used within health care.” Such in-group conversa-
tions suggest that Reiki practitioners may routinely self-censor descriptions of
196 the healing gods

Reiki when talking to hospital administrators and patients because practitio-

ners know that fuller disclosure would provoke opposition.32
Part of the motivation for getting Reiki into hospitals is that practicing
Reiki in mainstream settings with a steady clientele feels empowering for
women frustrated by gender inequities. Diane Stein is explicit that “if there
is one thing that Reiki heals, it is women’s self-confidence.” When women
not only learn but teach Reiki, “they empower and heal every aspect of their
lives.” Stein elaborates that “we who are women in a patriarchal culture have
always been healers, midwives, herbalists, and psychics.” She tells her female
students—and Stein allows only women to take her classes—that she “was
given a promise by my Goddess, Brede. . . . The promise is this: There will
be no more Inquisitions. We are safe to learn healing . . . you have the Light’s
blessings and protection.” In a related vein, Mary, a Catholic nun interviewed,
speaks of her work as a Reiki master and “Integrated Energy Therapy Master
Instructor” in terms of empowerment. Mary learned about chakras, the third
eye, and nine healing angels—one connected with each energy area—from
Franciscan nuns. Her comments point to power struggles between female
nuns and male priests. The priests—one in particular “hates what we do”—
are invited by church officials to participate in exorcism trainings in another
state, but nuns are excluded from this specialized training. The nuns pro-
test by offering their own healing modality. Feeling disempowered by male-
dominated medical and religious institutions, some women turn to Reiki for
authority to become healers.33

Empowering Nurses
Empowerment may similarly drive female nurses, who are the primary prac-
titioners of Therapeutic Touch. Sharon Fish Mooney, who wrote her nursing
doctoral dissertation on Therapeutic Touch, describes the practice as “very
much a symbol of what nurses ‘can do’ that physicians can’t do or won’t do.
It is a practice ‘owned’ by nurses.’ Herein lies its power for nurses.” Arlene
Miller, a nursing professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, explains the
popularity of Therapeutic Touch as a “power issue.” Because nurses have
“always felt a bit abused by medicine,” Therapeutic Touch represents what
nurses have “uniquely to contribute. They are ‘noninvasive,’ so it is kind of
an antitechnology move also. Nurses can do it without physicians’ orders.”
Sally Satel, a psychiatrist and lecturer at Yale University School of Medicine,
claims that the popularity of Therapeutic Touch reflects nurses’ protest
against the “sexually oppressive atmosphere” of the hospital world. The
Therapeutic Touch campaign is “fueled by . . . a fiery resentment of the medical
 Energy Medicine 197

establishment, the so-called male medical elite. Their antipathy represents a

thoroughly postmodern rejection of the prevailing medical culture wherein
doctors direct the patient’s treatment and nurses carry out many of those
directives.” Suggestively, the official conference program for the American
Nurses Association’s 1994 national convention printed a crystal symbol to des-
ignate workshops on the “healing arts practitioner,” one of which was titled
“Crones, Nurses and Witching.” Some nurses trained in Therapeutic Touch
break away from medical oversight by establishing successful private practices
in which they charge as much as $100 per session. Although nurses who prac-
tice Therapeutic Touch rarely articulate their motives in print, explanations
offered by critics such as Mooney, Miller, and Satel seem insightful.34
Because nurses are already essential contributors to the conventional
health-care system, integrating Therapeutic Touch into this system only
required recruiting nurses. Krieger exploited her standing as a professor of
nursing in what was in the early 1970s one of the few doctoral programs in
nursing in existence. A course first taught by Krieger in 1975 on “Frontiers
in Nursing: The Actualization of Potential for Therapeutic Human Field
Interaction” was required of all students in New York University’s M.A. and
Ph.D. nursing programs. New York University’s dean of nursing, Martha
Rogers, added legitimacy to Krieger’s innovative work by proposing a “human
energy theory” in the 1980s.35
Krieger gained crucial support from leaders of the major nursing profes-
sional associations. The American Nurses Association (ANA), the primary
professional association of registered nurses, gave its endorsement. The
American Holistic Nurses Association (AHNA), founded in 1981, advocated
Therapeutic Touch through its journal, with self-study of articles qualifying
for CEU credits. In 1992, the National League for Nursing, at the time the
only nursing-school accrediting organization in the United States, produced
a three-part video series, Therapeutic Touch: Healing through Human Energy
Fields, for nursing schools and CEU workshops. In 1994, Thérèse Meehan cre-
ated the diagnostic category “energy field disturbance” for the North American
Nursing Diagnosis Association (NANDA; NANDA International since
2002), an ANA division. Most U.S. nursing schools (according to a survey of
Michigan schools, 91 percent) use NANDA nomenclature to define conditions
that nurses can legally identify and for which they can order interventions.
The NANDA guidelines define an energy field disturbance as “the state in
which a disruption of the flow of energy surrounding a person’s being results
in a disharmony of body, mind, and/or spirit” and specify that Therapeutic
Touch is the preferred nursing intervention to remedy such disturbances.
The Therapeutic Touch International Association, founded in 1997, enhanced
198 the healing gods

professional status by developing standardized documents: “Guidelines of

Recommended Standards and Scope of Practice for Therapeutic Touch,”
“Therapeutic Touch Policy and Procedure for Health Professionals,” and a
“Code of Ethics.” Therapeutic Touch is taught in more than one hundred nurs-
ing schools in the United States and seventy-five other countries. Krieger’s
book, Therapeutic Touch: How to Use Your Hands to Help or to Heal (1979),
remains a popular textbook. Attendance at workshops counts toward CEU
credits. Estimates of the number of nurses who practice Therapeutic Touch
range from twenty thousand to one hundred thousand, and even the higher
figure may be conservative.36
An offspring of Therapeutic Touch, the trademarked Healing Touch cer-
tificate program, neatly packages metaphysics for modern nurses. Colorado
nurse Janet Mentgen created the program in 1989, with AHNA sponsorship.
Healing Touch combines aspects of Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, massage, and
other energy-based therapies and markets them as a “medically-based energy
training continuing education program” that counts as CEU contact hours for
nurses and massage therapists. Brochures advertise that “the Healing Touch
student undergoes a rigorous and comprehensive program that includes
114 to 118 hours of standardized curriculum with Certified Healing Touch
Instructors.” The program consists of five levels of workshops for healers,
with additional training and clinical requirements for instructor certification
at levels I through V. Tuition ranges from $365 to $900 per class. The Healing
Touch Certification Board credentials Healing Touch Certified Practitioners
and Healing Touch Certified Instructors.37
The Healing Touch program identifies metaphysical sophistication as
a requirement for the thoroughly qualified health-care professional. Level
I workshops teach Therapeutic Touch. Level III students contact “spirit
guides.” Seminar participants use crystals, pendulums, and hypnosis for psy-
chic or clairvoyant diagnosis and treatment. Mentgen’s Healing Touch Level
One Notebook (1994) introduces Healing Touch as a “sacred healing art” that
involves a “spiritual process,” although disavowing that it requires a “specific
religious orientation or organized religious systems.” The handbook teaches
that “Life Essence (Chi, Qi, Life Force, Orgone, Prana, Life Energy, Universal
Force, Soul) is the aspect of the person that continues to exist after physical
life ends.” A guidebook by the Center for Healing Touch and Wellness affirms
that “when we bring our consciousness to the seventh level of the [energy]
field, we know we are one with the Creator . . . we contain the scripture. We
contain divinity.” As part of instructor certification, practitioners submit a
lengthy application that includes self-evaluations of skills mastered in previous
levels. A Level III graduate should know how to “describe and practice Hara
 Energy Medicine 199

Alignment Meditation as the practitioner, including raising one’s vibrational

frequency through spinning of one’s chakras and expansion of the core star,”
and “demonstrate a full healing sequence, using Chelation, Spinal Cleansing,
additional deep cleansing techniques and working with the 5th, 6th, and 7th
levels of the auric body.” Healing Touch practitioners presumably use these
skills on the job to become better nurses or massage therapists.38

Conclusion
Energy medicine has become integral to the conventional health-care system.
In grasping the implications, it is crucial that this merger was not unplanned
but required intentional maneuvering. Although they marketed energy heal-
ing as medical science and nonsectarian spirituality instead of religion, the
developers of Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, and Healing Touch drew extensively
on Buddhist, Hindu, and Western metaphysics. The energy directed dur-
ing treatment and training is not physical but spiritual. To gain secular and
Christian audiences, practitioners portrayed energy healing as a nonreligious
or Christian branch of medicine. This is more than a case of imperfect com-
munication across cultural subgroups or of different people selecting from
among multiple meanings embedded in ambiguous language.
Practitioners who understand energy healing as one thing, metaphysics,
present it as something else, medicine, to overcome resistance from secular
or Christian critics. Providers disguise what they conceive of themselves as
doing to make it acceptable to those with authority to permit or to block prac-
tice in conventional health-care settings. Practitioners use one vocabulary set
when communicating with hospital administrators and patients but differ-
ent language when talking to one another. When they do not think they are
being overheard, energy healers admit to dissimulation and offer one another
advice on how to smuggle metaphysics into mainstream medicine: replacing
religious with scientific or generically spiritual terms, developing fee-based
courses eligible for CEU credits, publishing in medical journals, and appeal-
ing to women who feel disempowered by their role in male-dominated medical
or religious hierarchies. The concluding chapter explores the repercussions.
 Conclusion
Why Does It Matter If CAM Is Religious
(and Not Christian)—Even If It Works?

although most conversations about CAM focus on whether it works,

it is also important to ask why CAM is supposed to work, because answering
this question reveals that CAM concerns both religion and health. At issue is
not whether people opt for or against CAM but, rather, the processes involved
in reaching this decision and the contexts of CAM sponsorship. Certain CAM
providers—concerned with winning a clientele—conceal material informa-
tion about why they believe CAM works. Pragmatic consumers do not ask in-
depth questions. Holistic health care has become so mainstream that there is
little controversy when the government endorses CAM through public schools
or directly funds CAM research and services.
This concluding chapter contends that choosing CAM influences reli-
gious decisions. Making religious choices without intending to do so disrupts
informed decision making necessary for the economic and political health
of society. Selective, deceptive, or fraudulent representations of CAM impede
freedom of choice. Government endorsement or funding of certain CAM
practices violates the religious establishment clause of the Constitution’s First
Amendment. Consumers, health-care providers, policy makers, and courts all
have a stake in understanding the ethical and legal implications.
Whether or not courts will agree that my claims are judicially enforceable
in tort law or constitutional law, this chapter makes an ethical argument that
based on the values of personal autonomy, self-determination, religious equal-
ity, and religious voluntarism, health-care providers should be forthright in
their communications with patients; patients should use information avail-
able to make intentional choices; and government should not favor metaphys-
ical religion above other kinds of religion or irreligion.
 Conclusion 201

Informed Consent and Shared Decision Making

Since the civil rights and consumer revolutions of the 1960s, “informed
consent”—a term coined in the medical malpractice case of Salgo v. Leland
Stanford Jr. University (1957)—has, alongside companion phrases such as
“shared decision making” and “patient-centered care,” become a watchword
in America. Health-care consumers demand moral and legal rights to protec-
tion against unauthorized invasion of their bodies and facilitation of autono-
mous decision making, to ensure personal autonomy and self-determination.
The American Hospital Association’s “Patient’s Bill of Rights” of 1972 and
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996
reflect a cultural climate of growing rights consciousness. The World Medical
Association’s Declaration of Lisbon (1981) affirms that patients have the “right
to give or withhold consent to any diagnostic procedure or therapy. The patient
has the right to the information necessary to make his/her decisions.” The
British Medical Association (1993) defines necessary information as “what the
individual patient requires and, failing that, what the average ‘prudent patient’
would want to know.” This is because ability to make choices autonomously
requires substantial understanding of all material information.1
Because CAM has consequences for both religion and health, religious
information is material to decision making about CAM. Material information
is not limited to medical risks and benefits but also includes factors bearing
on patients’ “long-range goals and values,” including religious commitments.
In A History and Theory of Informed Consent (1986), ethicists Ruth Faden and
Tom Beauchamp argue that “manipulative underdisclosure of pertinent infor-
mation” fails to “respect autonomy,” and any denial of a “piece of information
to which a person has a right or entitlement based in justice is an injustice.”
This is because autonomous action requires understanding, voluntariness,
and intentionality. As Beauchamp explains in The Ethics of Consent (2010), “for
an act to be intentional, it must correspond to the actor’s conception of the act
in question.” Patients cannot intentionally participate in CAM without under-
standing consequences of their actions for both health and religion.2
There are, in informed-consent law, competing standards for who deter-
mines what information should be disclosed for patients to be able to act
intentionally. Ethicists criticize the professional-practice standard, although it
is commonly used, because physicians may not be sufficiently knowledgeable
or motivated to give patients information relevant to “nonmedical judgments”
for or against medical care. By the reasonable-person standard, the patient,
instead of the physician, defines what information is material to decision mak-
ing. In the United States, where most people affirm belief in a personal God,
202 the healing gods

a reasonable person can be expected to want to understand implications of

health-care practices for theistic beliefs. The more demanding individual stan-
dard requires physicians to disclose information that each particular patient
might want to know, even if most patients would not consider the informa-
tion important; reflecting a view that high-quality treatment includes patient-
centered care, by the individual standard, those patients who desire to protect
religious purity, such as evangelical Christians, might need additional infor-
mation. This book sides with analysts who hold that the professional-practice
standard is inadequate to protect patient rights and that the reasonable-person
or individual standard should be applied. This raises two questions: Do health-
care providers offer information material to decision making of a reasonable
person? And do health-care consumers exercise rights and responsibilities to
access information and make intentional decisions?3

The Responsibility of Health-care Providers in an

Integrative Medical Market
The backdrop to modern informed-consent requirements is that patients
have in the past been treated unethically, or even lost their lives, because cre-
dentialed medical professionals and government employees administered or
deprived patients of therapies without informed consent. The Nuremberg
Code (1946) of research ethics addressed notorious abuses and lack of con-
sent in human experimentation by the Nazi regime. The Belmont Principles
(1974), which now govern all interactions between researchers and human
subjects, responded to observed patterns of “lack of informed consent,”
“withholding information” about available treatments or risks, “coercion or
undue pressure on volunteers,” and “exploitation of a vulnerable population.”
Between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) offered free
medical care, meals, and burial insurance to 399 impoverished rural black
men in Tuskegee, Alabama. The PHS did not inform the men that they had
syphilis, and neither treated them for the disease nor told them that peni-
cillin had become the standard treatment by 1947. The government study,
intended to observe the progression of untreated syphilis, only ended after
a whistle-blower leaked information to the press. In 2011, it became public
that between 1946 and 1948, PHS researchers had also intentionally infected
with syphilis and gonorrhea (and then treated with penicillin) several hundred
Guatemalans made vulnerable by their confinement in prison, army barracks,
and a mental-health asylum. In both syphilis studies, the PHS justified violat-
ing individual rights as producing public-health benefits. The obvious motive
 Conclusion 203

for selecting vulnerable populations was that others could not be expected to
consent.4
The courts have applied informed-consent requirements not only to
research studies but also to clinical care of patients in civil cases or tort law.
Like other vulnerable populations, patients in poor health might feel undue
pressure to accept offered services although they lack substantial understand-
ing of risks and benefits. As early as 1914, the New York Court of Appeals
held in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals that “every human being of
adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with
his own body.” The plaintiff had consented to being examined under ether
to diagnose whether a fibroid tumor was malignant but withheld consent to
remove the tumor. The physician removed the tumor anyway, violating the
right of “self-determination.” The court reasoned that this violation entailed
unauthorized touching—or battery—even if the treatment was skillfully exe-
cuted and medically beneficial. In Natanson v. Kline (1960), a patient suffered
severe burns after a physician failed to obtain informed consent for cobalt
radiation therapy following a mastectomy. Rather than rely on battery theory,
the Kansas Supreme Court found the physician liable for negligence, an unin-
tended harmful action or omission that results from failure to exercise due
care. Canterbury v. Spence (1972), heard by the United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit, involved a patient who suffered paralysis sub-
sequent to a recommended surgery for severe back pain; the patient had not
been warned that the procedure was known to carry a 1-percent risk of paraly-
sis. Applying battery and negligence theories, the court held that a physician
should disclose risks when a “reasonable person” would likely take risks into
account in decision making. As medical bioethics emerged as a research field,
a growing number of voices argued that medical providers have both ethical
and legal duties to respect patient choices to accept or refuse even lifesaving
treatments.5
The best-known class of cases in which religious beliefs lead patients
to refuse conventional medical treatments is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses’
rejection of blood transfusions. Most Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that blood
transfusions, even when necessary to save life, violate biblical law. In the
Canadian case of Malette v. Shulman (1990), the court found that clinicians
should not provide emergency treatment if there is reason to believe that
patients would have withheld consent for religious reasons. In Malette,
the plaintiff carried a signed wallet card identifying herself as a Jehovah’s
Witness and indicating that she did not want blood transfusions under any
circumstances. The defendant administered a transfusion while the patient
was unconscious, and the procedure saved her life, but the clinician was still
204 the healing gods

found liable for battery. The judge ruled that the unwanted intervention was
a violation of the patient’s “right to control her own body and show[ed] disre-
spect for the religious values by which she has chosen to live her life.” Such
cases, in which a patient perceives a conflict between medical treatments
and religious convictions, are relatively easy to adjudicate based on the value
of self-determination.6
Instances in which patients do not see a religious conflict but in which
they might be expected to perceive one if they knew more about the religious
implications of health-care options involve more complex considerations. But
here, too, the Jehovah’s Witnesses example is instructive. There is a minority
movement within the Jehovah’s Witnesses of those who believe that blood
transfusions are compatible with the Bible; many Witnesses are unaware of
the movement or its arguments, because it must be conducted underground
lest other Witnesses ostracize adherents. Some informed-consent theorists
claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses requiring blood transfusions should be pro-
vided with information about pro-transfusion Witness arguments. The ratio-
nale is that if Witnesses knew more about their own religious tradition, some
patients might change their views about the compatibility of blood transfu-
sions with their beliefs. By this logic, providers should also be forthcoming
about information that might cause patients to question the compatibility of
treatment options with their religious traditions.7
The physician-patient relationship, which causes patients to trust informa-
tion given by health-care providers, heightens the responsibility of providers
to assist patients in gaining “substantial understanding of what is at stake in
the consent decision.” Imbalances in knowledge and power give providers an
affirmative obligation to supply information. Providers cannot predict every
potential conflict with each patient’s religious beliefs. But providers have an
ethical and legal obligation to inform clients if they suspect that offered goods
and services may be incongruent with patients’ religious beliefs, especially if
providers anticipate (or even hope) that practicing CAM may induce clients
to change their religious beliefs. My point is not that providers should make
written consent forms longer than they already are but that they should com-
municate suspected religious implications to their clients. Patients should be
given control over the information they receive in order to protect them from
manipulation, defined as getting someone to do “what the manipulator wants
through a nonpersuasive means that alters a person’s understanding of a situ-
ation and motivates the person to do what the agent of influence intends.”
The values of personal autonomy and self-determination suggest that CAM
practitioners should be clearest in communicating their spiritual viewpoints
not to those patients who already feel pulled toward vitalistic philosophies but
 Conclusion 205

to those who might reject certain CAM options if they better understood their
religious and spiritual frameworks.8
The cultural move toward integrative medicine means that more CAM
services are available in hospital and clinical settings. These contexts imply
scientific legitimacy and secular status, making it all the more important that
providers disclose all that offered services entail. Yet when CAM promoters call
for patient choice, they generally do not have in mind their own responsibility
to give full disclosure as much as the responsibility of conventional doctors to
make patients aware of CAM and extend medical privileges to CAM provid-
ers. An article in Resonance: The Magazine of the International Foundation for
Homeopathy (1998) avers that “patients are demanding to be given full infor-
mation, freedom of choice, and self-responsibility. Relationships based on
equality and trust are replacing those based on domination and fear.” Picking
up on the theme of physician-generated fear, another article cautions against
“homeophobia.” Such publications emphasize the importance of giving con-
sumers information about the availability of CAM options such as home-
opathy and cultivating egalitarian provider-customer relationships rather
than pressuring patients to follow “doctors’ orders.” The chair of the World
Chiropractic Alliance Chiropractic Advocacy Council, Matthew McCoy, carves
out space for CAM within the conventional health-care system by insisting
that “patients must have the right to choose the type of health care they desire
and not be restricted or forced to acquire their care from practitioners they do
not wish to see, to have procedures they do not wish to have nor engage with
systems of healing with which they disagree.” An unexplored corollary is that
some patients might disagree with systems of healing inserted into the health-
care system by CAM providers—if providers volunteered more information
about them.9
The same CAM providers who rally for patient choice in health care do not
always disclose vitalistic premises of offered services. The Nurse’s Handbook
urges “communication and patient involvement and choice in decision mak-
ing,” cautioning that some CAM services may “violate the patient’s basic
beliefs.” Yet this same handbook recommends to nurses that they explain
CAM to patients using language calculated to sound scientific rather than
religious. The handbook includes a reproducible handout, “Learning about
Acupuncture and Acupressure,” for patients requesting information. The
handout identifies acupuncture and acupressure as “key parts of traditional
Chinese medicine. This ancient form of medicine holds that specific body
points (called acupoints) are connected or attuned to specific organs. If one of
these organs has a problem, such as pain or swelling, stimulating the appro-
priate acupoints is believed to create balance and restore or improve the flow
206 the healing gods

of qi (pronounced ‘chee’), or energy, thus relieving the problem and restoring

health. Qi must be in balance to be healthy.” The handout equates qi with
“energy” and frames acupuncture as a medical technique for balancing energy
necessary for health, while remaining silent about Taoist philosophy.10
Failure to disclose information is often intentional and does not merely
result from oversight or differing standards of what information is mate-
rial. A report to the NIH, Alternative Medicine (1992), advises a strategy for
overcoming resistance of Christian patients to “mind-body interventions”
rooted in “Eastern religious practices.” In order to “ameliorate the objections
of many Christian religious groups to meditation,” promotional materials
should emphasize “commonalities between Christian prayer and contempla-
tion and Eastern meditation.” Because Christian patients can be expected to
reject meditation if it is perceived as non-Christian, the NIH report recom-
mends shifting attention to Christian parallels. Likewise, a National Expert
Meeting on Qi Gong and Tai Chi Consensus Report (2005) outlines a strategy
for increasing acceptance in senior centers, hospitals, faith-based institutions,
retirement homes, and elder communities: by translating descriptions of t’ai
chi and qigong into “Western language” of “health practices” and publicizing
secularized explanations through medical journal articles, press releases, TV
and radio programming, and recruitment of sports stars and entertainers.11
Holistic providers who subscribe to vitalistic theories are sometimes quite
deliberate in selecting medical language when communicating with patients
who do not share their spiritual outlook. Dr. Smith is a conventionally trained
physician who works in an “integrative holistic” clinic at a rehabilitation hos-
pital. When asked by an interviewer how acupuncture works, Smith at first
replied, “I will have to go with a scientific explanation on this.” She proceeded
to theorize that stimulation of acupoints may prompt glands to secrete endor-
phins or that punctures may dilate blood vessels, thereby increasing local blood
flow to cleanse the area of toxins and promote muscle relaxation. Intrigued by
how Smith introduced her response, the interviewer asked whether Smith
herself adhered to a different theory of how acupuncture works. Smith then
acknowledged her belief that qi flows through meridians. Acupuncture allows
“universal energy” to flow unimpeded through the body, which possesses
“innate” healing power. Denying that acupuncture is a “religious” practice,
Smith emphasized “spirituality,” since “acupuncture opens the door to link
the spiritual world to the body.” When asked whether she usually tells patients
about her spiritual ideas of how acupuncture works, Smith admitted that she
does not. Since most of her patients feel “overwhelmed” by pain and disabili-
ties, Smith does not think it is right to “bombard them with information that
will just add to their feeling of being confused and overwhelmed,” presumably
 Conclusion 207

because of perceived conflicts with their own religious beliefs. Instead, Smith
uses a “scientific explanation” to conceal her spiritual views.12
Smith is not an isolated example. Holistic providers who need to build
and retain a clientele seek to minimize resistance from patients. Providers
who have encountered resistance from Christian patients self-monitor com-
munications. River Jordan is an acupuncturist writing for fellow members of
the People’s Organization of Community Acupuncture (POCA), a cooperative
whose “goal is to make acupuncture available and accessible.” Jordan offers
advice to acupuncturists who do not “see the elephant that may be standing
in your clinic—maybe going poop on your chances of running a success-
ful clinic.” Jordan learned his lesson after being turned down in his request
for clinic space in a downtown Seattle church. The evangelical pastor had
informed Jordan that “there was concern about the Taoist roots of acupunc-
ture.” Jordan responded to this rebuff by taking down a “large brocade paint-
ing of Medicine Buddha in one corner of the treatment room. I feel pretty
confident that probably 95 percent of my patients are either indifferent to it, or
like it, but I don’t want to make even 5 percent of my community uncomfort-
able.” Another POCA member, Acuguy, related a similar experience. Several
“prospective patients” had, twenty years earlier, come to him with ques-
tions after “some church groups looked into acupuncture and sent word out
through their networks that using acupuncture was contrary to Christian val-
ues.” Acuguy assuaged concerns by narrating a history in which acupuncture
originated in “trial and error experimentation” that came “before any Taoist
theory was eventually attributed to its effects,” implying that Taoism is an ines-
sential add-on. Such providers explain acupuncture selectively to avoid turn-
ing away clients.13
Given the prevalence of evangelical Christianity in American culture, holis-
tic providers may take particular care to do their homework on evangelicals.
The POCA Web site contains a satirical post titled “Evangelical Community
Acupuncture.” The post is supposedly written by an evangelical minister who
discovered acupuncture when his aunt was seeking pain relief for an arthritic
knee. The fictional pastor, John Carol, admits that he was “very suspicious and
wary” of acupuncture because “it is foreign culturally.” Although acupuncture
helped his aunt, Carol felt uncomfortable “with the manner in which it was
supposed to work.” This was because it “is based on a metaphysical construct
that is absolutely counter to everything we know and understand through west-
ern medicine. Now, I do not prescribe [sic] to everything that western medicine
has to say, and frankly, I think that it can be an arrogant and Godless system
that deifies science and man at the expense of morals, values and the Word of
God. However, what we do know about the body and the way that God made
208 the healing gods

man in His own image tells us that if the theories of Oriental medicine are to
be taken as valid, the Bible and the Word of God would be somehow incomplete
or lacking.” But as Carol looked more closely at acupuncture, he concluded that
“the ancient Chinese may have been intuiting the coming of Jesus, and what
is called qi in the Chinese classics was actually the Holy Spirit. Whether or
not they understood this is inconsequential.” Now Carol uses acupuncture to
“activate the Holy Spirit, faith in the Lord, so that the teachings of Christ can be
brought out of the Bible to manifest into the believer’s activities here on earth.”
Carol calls his distinctively Christian brand of acupuncture “body, mind, Holy
Spirit medicine,” citing Bible verses such as John 3:6, Ezekiel 36:26–27, and 2
Corinthians 5:17 (which refer to “Spirit”). Carol replaces the term “needles” with
“nails” and “acupuncture” with “regenerating.” Carol uses just two acupoints—
pericardium 8 (center of the palm) and liver 3 (center of the foot)—because
they are “an archetypal representation of the crucifixion and are apt entryways
for the Holy Spirit.” Although it is a parody, the post presents insightful analy-
sis of evangelical reasoning. The intended audience is other POCA members
who want to understand evangelicals in order to craft self-presentations that
maximize appeal and minimize offense.14
Evidence of self-censorship extends beyond acupuncture to other CAM
fields. According to chiropractic historian Joseph Donahue, 80 percent of chi-
ropractors “evade professional accountability” by firing at patients a “barrage
of quasi-scientific information” about particular techniques, while remaining
intentionally vague about the meanings of Innate Intelligence, because they
realize that this “religious doctrine . . . if understood by the patient, would be
reprehensible to many of them.” Medical bioethicist Michael Burgess charges
chiropractors with using the “relative safety and non-invasiveness” of adjust-
ments to excuse failing to meet medical standards of informed consent that
would ethically and legally require them to disclose whether adjustments
could, in the language of attorney Richard Steinecke, “offend a religious, ethi-
cal or personal belief of the patient.” By this reasoning, chiropractors should
be clearest in communicating their viewpoints not to those patients who
already feel pulled toward vitalism but to those who might reject chiropractic
if they better understood its doctrines. By implication, chiropractors who are
chameleonic in their self-presentation—personally holding vitalistic views but
adopting vague or scientific-sounding vocabularies when addressing patients
who may not share their outlook—should be held culpable for violating an
ethical and legal responsibility to give patients information necessary to make
informed decisions.15
Some CAM promoters admit to being very careful about what informa-
tion they communicate to clients and how and when they do so. Sociologists
 Conclusion 209

label this tactic “camouflage.” The strategy involves “elaborate techniques of

concealing and gradual exposure.” Holistic consultants introduce metaphysi-
cal spirituality to business professionals by systematically replacing suspect
terms such as “meditation” or “spirituality” with more neutral words such
as “intuition,” “authenticity,” “profundity,” “holism,” and “purity.” One con-
sultant interviewed acknowledges that “only after I get the group’s trust do
I start, very carefully. People are skeptical at first. When I suggest practicing
yoga or meditation they are unconvinced about the whole process. I wait some
time and then raise it again. It is a gradual process. Today I get into an orga-
nization with a topic such as time management, evaluation of employees or
contact with clients, and via this window I start the process.” Other consul-
tants lead with the benefits of “awareness” training in overcoming negative
emotions such as anxiety or anger. Later, once resistance is down, these same
consultants introduce unambiguously spiritual content in “advanced” training
workshops. Jon Kabat-Zinn minimizes spiritual vocabulary during his eight-
week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction classes. But as students graduate,
he recommends that they find an ongoing meditation group such as an Insight
Meditation Society, an organization that Kabat-Zinn describes as having “a
slightly Buddhist orientation.”16
Holistic healers defend their rights to recruit clients. The rights of health-
care providers and patients may, however, conflict. In such cases, there are
greater ethical and legal obligations to protect rights of patients as a vulner-
able population. The AHNA contends that “denying a patient Reiki or pro-
hibiting a nurse from administering Reiki violates the ethical principles of
patient and nurse autonomy.” Responding to such claims, health-care attorney
Michael Cohen distinguishes spiritual healing by clergy from that by people
with secular jobs, such as Reiki or Therapeutic Touch by nurses. The latter
practices should have a different legal status, one not immune from regu-
lation, because the blurring of spiritual and secular functions increases the
risk of abuse, defined as violation of fiduciary responsibility, or betrayal of
trust, in the healer-client relationship. Susan Salladay, professor of nursing
at Cedarville University in Ohio, makes a related point that patients—whose
autonomy must be protected—may have difficulty distinguishing between a
spiritual and a medical therapy when a health-care professional, rather than
clergy, performs spiritual healing practices.17
Biomedical ethicists coined the phrase “therapeutic misconception” to
express concern that patients may consent to participate in research experi-
ments believing that their individual needs will determine treatment or
because of an exaggerated perception of the likelihood of benefit. This book
argues that therapeutic misconception may also arise when patients consent
210 the healing gods

to CAM believing that they will receive medical therapies, not a gradual intro-
duction to religious practices, and the probability of misconception increases
when providers neglect to provide religious information from the start.
Consent is compromised if patients do not understand how standard medical
care differs from scientific research or religious practices.18
Holistic healers commonly claim that their interventions are noninva-
sive and therefore not subject to the same informed-consent standards as
medical interventions. The Nurse’s Handbook, in a section titled “Informed
Consent,” instructs that in “introducing a specific noninvasive therapy such
as Therapeutic Touch . . . no formal informed consent would be expected.
However, if you were planning to introduce a more intrusive therapy, such as
aromatherapy, you’d have to obtain a clinical informed consent as it’s consid-
ered a patient choice option.” Such a distinction does not, however, account
for the theory of energy medicine, that the practitioner is touching—that is,
invading—the patient’s spiritual energy fields. In a different section of this
multiauthored text, some two hundred fifty pages later, the writer advises that
“some people regard energy work as an invasion of their personal space and
boundaries. . . . Always ask for consent before proceeding with a Therapeutic
Touch treatment.” An instructive example is provided by Anne, a woman
whose husband was unconscious in a hospital ICU. A nurse approached Anne,
admitting, “I should have asked your permission first, but I really wanted you
to know that at night I go in to see your husband, and I’ve been doing a thing
called therapeutic touch. What would you think if I did it with him, now that
he’s alert?” Only after Anne’s husband was regaining consciousness, making
it impossible to hide the use of Therapeutic Touch any longer, did the nurse
seek permission, without, however, disclosing the spiritual premises of an
apparently medical intervention.19
Anecdotal evidence suggests that it might be relatively common for energy
healers to give treatments without seeking consent. Diane Stein teaches her
students to seek “indirect permission from animals, infants, and unconscious
people” by asking their “Higher Self in meditation,” rather than engaging
in direct, nonpsychic communication with family members. Sister Mary
Mebane, a Franciscan Sister and hospital chaplain, performs Reiki on uncon-
scious patients: “I ask permission from unconscious patients on the men-
tal level, knowing their Higher Self will respond. Sometimes the answer is
yes, sometimes no, sometimes I do not get an answer. In that case I send
Reiki with the provision that if the person does not want to receive it, that it
go to someone who does.” Hospital chaplains Bruce and Katherine Epperly
use Reiki on unconscious patients with consent from nurses but not from
patients’ families. When John, an Anglican monk, uses laying on of hands in
 Conclusion 211

church services to pray for Christians seeking healing through power of the
Holy Spirit, he incorporates Reiki and Buddhist meditation. To avoid alarming
theologically conservative Christians, John conceals what he is doing: “You
just call it the spirit.” For touch-based therapies, such as Reiki, Therapeutic
Touch, chiropractic, massage, or laying on of hands, touching under pretense
of administering a medical intervention while performing a religious practice
(or masking one kind of religion as another) or touching a patient’s body or
“energy fields” without permission might constitute battery.20
If CAM practitioners did not camouflage their interventions, there is rea-
son to believe that some patients would reject CAM as religiously illegitimate.
An article in the Journal of Professional Nursing cautions that “respect for the
religious practices of others requires all of us to take care not to violate the
belief systems of our patients.” In the view of the authors, “many dedicated
religious people” would refuse Therapeutic Touch if it were explained to them.
Although there is a relatively substantial evangelical literature denouncing
Therapeutic Touch on religious grounds, this is not the case for other com-
mon CAM practices, such as chiropractic and acupuncture. It may be instruc-
tive at this point to return to two anecdotes that opened earlier chapters. Betty
and Bob, whose story leads into chapter 4 above, are Christians who had been
enthusiastic supporters of chiropractic for decades at the time of our interview.
There is an addendum to this report. After the interview, Betty and Bob asked
to read an early draft of my chiropractic chapter (written before I had added
their story). After reading it, they wrote back that given the information pre-
sented, “there is no way that we can continue to be involved in any way with
chiropractic,” having reevaluated it as an un-Christian religious practice.21
There is further insight that can be gleaned from the vignette of Brian
Carter, the Christian acupuncturist whose story introduces chapter 6 above.
It may be recalled that Carter reassures Christians that they can safely avoid
suspect religious add-ons to acupuncture by asking their acupuncturists if
they just needle medically or add something energetically or spiritually. Yet
the interview with Dr. Smith hints that asking Carter’s question may not yield
accurate information, since Smith confessed to holding spiritual views, but
instead explaining acupuncture in medical terms. Acupuncturists such as
Carter and Smith might cross paths with potential Christian clients such as
Jim, an associate pastor at an evangelical megachurch who does not know
much about acupuncture but who told an interviewer that “the fact that acu-
puncture comes from the East is not an immediate disqualifier for me. . . . If
it proved to be morally credible and medically beneficial, I would feel free
to explore the possibility.” The same interviewer who spoke with Jim had
recently interviewed Dr. Smith and asked Jim what he thought of Smith’s view
212 the healing gods

that acupuncture opens the “door to link the spiritual world to the body.” Jim
responded with apparent alarm, stating unequivocally that he did not consider
it legitimate to visit a practitioner who has such views. This is an interesting
reaction, given Dr. Smith’s revelation that she does not tell patients (who per-
ceive her as a medical doctor working in a secular hospital setting) about her
spiritual understanding of acupuncture, precisely because she does not want
this information to make them feel “confused and overwhelmed” by an appar-
ent conflict with their religious beliefs. Such examples suggest that if CAM
providers routinely disclosed religious information, some consumers would
decide not to participate.22

Practices Changing Beliefs

Failure to disclose information about CAM’s spiritual dimensions is signifi-
cant, because the act of engaging in spiritually premised practices may lead
to unpremeditated changes in religious beliefs. There is evidence of religious
shifts occurring through participation in the least overtly spiritual CAM prac-
tices, such as chiropractic. Sociologists Meredith McGuire and Debra Kantor
found that individuals who visit a chiropractor desiring only physical benefits
“opened the door” to journey into metaphysics. One woman reflected that
her chiropractor taught her to replace her inherited Christian idea that she
has a soul with the notion that she is a soul. It is “not that I have an Innate
Intelligence, but that I am Innate Intelligence in this physical shell.” Nancy
is an internationally prominent pentecostal pastor who acknowledged in an
interview going to a chiropractor “for many years” at the frequency of once
every three weeks. Having grown frustrated by repeated failures to relieve
painful breast cysts through prayer alone, she had recently added more fre-
quent biofeedback treatments from an herbalist whom her chiropractor rec-
ommended. At one point referring to chiropractic as a category of “medical
stuff,” Nancy subsequently admitted to not liking the “idea of medicine, so
I thought I would take an alternative route and it seems to be working really,
really well for me.” Nancy selected chiropractic because it was both like and
unlike medicine and, especially, because it worked for her. Although Nancy
still denounces the New Age and encourages prayer for healing, it appears that
a theological change occurred: expectation of the accessibility of divine heal-
ing diminished as Nancy refocused her efforts on pursuing healing through a
growing CAM repertoire.23
The full implications of such theological shifts lie beyond the scope of
this book. Research on pentecostal divine-healing practices reveals a pattern
in which individuals credit God’s love and power for perceived experiences
 Conclusion 213

of divine healing, motivating individuals to express greater love for God

and other people through acts of benevolence, a phenomenon dubbed
“Godly Love” by sociologists. The Godly Love model suggests that dimin-
ished emphasis on divine healing by pentecostals could result in decreased
benevolence, unless it is replaced by other benevolence-generating practices.
This provokes a number of questions. Whom do Christians credit for heal-
ing through CAM? Does participation in CAM change Christians’ under-
standing of who “God” is? Does practicing CAM generate “love energy” that
results in increased benevolence? If so, how do effects compare with those
reported for divine-healing practices? These are questions that invite further
investigation.24
The study in this book indicates that participating in CAM may result in
significant spiritual transformations even for those individuals who do not
intend to become involved in CAM’s spiritual dimensions. Michael Raposa,
a martial-arts scholar and practitioner, uses aikido as an example. Morihei
Ueshiba (1883–1969) developed aikido in Japan to embody a new religious
movement, Omoto-kyo, which draws on Taoism, Buddhism, and Shinto. For
Ueshiba, the cosmos has a divine center, and meditation, or sinking into the
center of one’s being, is a way of returning to the cosmic center. The cos-
mos gave rise to ki, the energy that animates everything, and breath, which is
both physical and spiritual, embodies ki. Aikido students “breathe in and let
yourself soar to the ends of the universe; breathe out and bring the cosmos
back inside. . . . Blend the Breath of Earth with that of your own, becoming the
Breath of Life itself.” Because aikido expresses its philosophy through bodily
practices, “one need not have specific religious commitments or intend to pur-
sue aikido as a spiritual discipline in order to be transformed by its actual
practice in subtle but powerful ways.” British martial-arts scholar Stewart
McFarlane argues that “many people, particularly in the West, have been
drawn to Zen and other forms of Buddhist practice through an initial inter-
est in and pursuit of Eastern martial arts.” Charlish and Robertshaw observe
that “as you have regular reiki treatments, you may notice significant shifts in
your attitudes toward and experience of life. . . . Many people gradually become
aware that their trust in the universe is strengthening. . . . Their intuitive sense,
sometimes known as the sixth sense, also grows.” Stein notes that shortly after
Reiki II, students report “significant life changes. . . . She may have changed
jobs or professions, moved cross-country, or found a new mate.” Such claims
are noteworthy if one recalls that some Reiki masters give Reiki I graduates
scant information about Reiki’s spiritual dimensions. By the time students
learn the Reiki symbols and advanced techniques in Reiki II, the process of
spiritual transformation may already be well under way.25
214 the healing gods

Numerous examples could be cited of individuals changing viewpoints

after practicing CAM. In an article titled “Reiki Helped Me Understand
Christianity Better,” Murielle Marchand recalls that “it is when I turned Reiki
II and learnt about the symbols that my understanding of the Christian faith
drastically began to change. . . . When I started using the Reiki protection sign
almost every day it suddenly occurred to me that the cross was the Christians’
protection sign (in one of its uses of course) and that each faith had just sim-
ply developed its own symbols.” After Reiki II, Marchand no longer perceived
a conflict among different religions. When Roman Catholic Marita Aicher-
Swartz started using Reiki, she wondered if she could be “both a Christian
and practice Reiki.” But during treatments, “a transformation occurred in how
I understood the gift of Reiki healing,” and she now calls for help from spirit
guides without feeling uneasy. For Catholic Margaret Lee Lyles, the “jump
from wary skepticism to totally embracing Reiki took eight years!” Lyles now
feels comfortable speaking about her “aura” and notes that “Reiki leads us to
other things that are an essential part in our healing process, such as Tai Chi
or Qi Gong, yoga exercises, acupuncture, and different forms of meditation.”
Nurse Janet Quinn acknowledges that “using Therapeutic Touch has changed
and continues to change me.” This is because the practice “requires a certain
philosophy, and this philosophy permeates one’s total existence.” Once one is
permeated by a vitalistic philosophy, it is a short step from trying one CAM
option to using other holistic modalities.26
Yoga has provided a gateway for many Americans into a monistic world-
view. Cautious but curious Americans experiment with yoga in secular fit-
ness centers or church-based yoga-inspired classes. A New York Times article
observed in 2000 that “yoga’s practical, world-friendly character is having an
impact on Americans who would never visit an ashram.” Popular yoga author
Beryl Bender Birch notes that “people get turned on to yoga in health clubs, and
if they’re looking to deepen their practice, they’ll go to the yoga studio. It’s defi-
nitely a way in.” Many, if not most, gym yoga instructors receive their training
at religious studios but adapt their presentation of yoga for secular audiences.
Marcy, a Cambridge, Massachusetts, yoga instructor, self-consciously puts on
a secular face when going into fitness centers. Personally, “I love to immerse
myself” in the idea that “we are divine beings, cloaked in human flesh.” But
Marcy does not want to “turn people off, or offend them.” Pragmatically, she
says, “I have to make my living at this. Now mind you, if I didn’t have to make
my living, I might be able to advertise my yoga class as a spiritual yoga.” In the
gym, Marcy offers yoga “for stress reduction, flexibility, muscle strengthening,
and community. Which is all true. And all fine, you know. I censor myself
sometimes because I want it to be as palatable as I can to everybody. I want to
 Conclusion 215

cast a wide net.” Yet Marcy always carries with her brochures for yoga retreats,
hoping that her classes will whet students’ appetite for spiritual yoga.27
There is reason to conclude that Marcy’s strategy of self-censorship is effec-
tive, if not wholly honest. Phil Catalfo writes for the Yoga Journal that “while
many Westerners come to yoga primarily for its health benefits, it seems safe
to say that most people who open to yoga will, in time . . . come to see yoga as
a spiritual practice.” Yoga Journal’s Anne Cushman points to the “millions of
Americans for whom ‘yoga’ means ‘asana’—and for whom the physical pos-
tures are both the gateway into the practice and the vehicle for the spiritual
teachings. . . . Hatha yoga taps into our lust for physical perfection, but at the
same time, it . . . is an entryway to spiritual awakening.” Cushman notes that
“for most people, it starts as simply as this: Yoga makes us feel good, and we
like to feel good.” But “if you look closely at the serious yoga practitioner—the
person who does it on a regular basis for more than a year or so—you’ll often
find that asana has become not just an end in itself, but the medium through
which he or she begins to explore other yogic teachings.” Yoga practice that
starts off physical can become spiritual through repeated performance.28
The process through which yoga practice changes religious beliefs may be
subtle. According to yoga promoter Victor Parachin, “there is no requirement
that participants have any religious or spiritual outlook. Yet many who begin
to practice yoga say they experience subtle shifts in attitude and thoughts.”
Religion scholars Sabine Henrichsen-Schrembs and Peter Versteeg have
noticed that regardless of why people begin doing yoga, “a shift seems to take
place,” leading some to “a whole new spiritual awareness and totally identify-
ing with the yoga philosophy.” Sharon, a yoga professor at a public univer-
sity, tried yoga to “give time to myself,” an emphasis lacking in her Episcopal
church. Sharon gradually “let go” of her “own religion” and, marrying a
man with “Eastern” views, allowed yoga to fill the void left by her abandoned
Christian beliefs. Following her divorce, Sharon returned to church, but she
now feels more comfortable in a Unitarian congregation.29
Christians like Sharon who begin yoga for nonreligious reasons some-
times experience unanticipated religious transformations. Sannyasin
Arumugaswami, the managing editor of Hinduism Today, attests that
Hinduism is the “soul” of yoga and that “a Christian trying to adapt these
practices will likely disrupt their own Christian beliefs.” The Hindu American
Foundation’s Aseem Shukla warns that Christians who practice yoga may
inadvertently enter the Hindu path to realize one’s own divinity: “But be fore-
warned. Yogis say that the dedicated practice of yoga will subdue the rest-
less mind, lessen one’s cravings for the mundane material world and put
one on the path of self-realization—that each individual is a spark of the
216 the healing gods

divine. Expect conflicts if you are sold on the exclusivist claims of Abrahamic
faiths—that their God awaits the arrival of only His chosen few at heaven’s
gate—since yoga shows its own path to spiritual enlightenment to all seekers,
regardless of affiliation.” Julia, the owner of an independent yoga studio in
a Midwestern university town, agrees with Arumugaswami and Shukla that
practicing yoga causes Christians to change their religious beliefs. Julia notes
that the “YMCA’s made a difference” in alleviating the hesitancy of Christians
to try yoga, but “you can’t practice yoga and not be affected by these deeper
meanings of it, by what it really means,” that each person’s “inner being” is
“like God,” a “perfect” and “eternally wise being.” One of Julia’s college-age
interns, Kristin, grew up Catholic but tried yoga because it appeared to be “not
religious. I mean they have yoga classes at the YMCA and that’s a Christian
organization.” Kristin explored yoga “starting with the physical aspects,” since
she enjoyed the stretching. But she says, “then I started reading” and discov-
ered a “really good mind body spirit thing.” Kristin now considers the “eight
limbs of Ashtanga” as taught by Patanjali to be “basically similar to the 10
commandments,” but better since the principles are “just like suggestions” by
contrast with rule-oriented Christianity.30
A recurring pattern in the foregoing examples is that people, including
theologically conservative Christians, seeking physical health benefits and
failing to find help from medical doctors or churches experiment with CAM.
Novices restrict participation to the physical side of the practice or replace
metaphysical with Christian content. Over time, participants experience sub-
tly coercive pressures to internalize a wider swath of meanings, leading to
unpremeditated shifts in worldview. Technique teachers sometimes conceal
theories for beginners, gradually introducing ideas as participation deep-
ens. If participants become aware of shifting understandings and implicit
retheorizing, they rationalize such changes, given their growing investment
in reaping perceived benefits. One unusually self-reflective evangelical pastor
interviewed acknowledged that he does not want to know more about philoso-
phies undergirding CAM because he wants to feel able to participate. More
often, perceived legitimacy of engaging in one holistic practice provides entry
to other practices. Involvement in relatively mainstream practices eases the
transition to more marginal practices and the worldviews they reflect.31
Failure of health-care providers to disclose material information about
CAM’s religious implications violates ethical principles of truth in advertis-
ing and may involve illegal fraud, deception, or unfair business practices. In
Schnellmann v. Roettger (2007), the South Carolina Supreme Court defined
fraud as consisting of nine elements: “(1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its
materiality; (4) knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard for its truth or
 Conclusion 217

falsity; (5) intent that the plaintiff act upon the representation; (6) the hearer’s
ignorance of its falsity; (7) the hearer’s reliance on its truth; (8) the hearer’s
right to rely thereon; and (9) the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury.”
Although the Supreme Court, in United States v. Ballard (1944), disallowed
finding fraud based on the implausibility of religious beliefs, it allowed con-
sidering whether defendants sincerely believe their own claims. By this rea-
soning, CAM providers are culpable if they think they are providing religious
services but mask their ideas with medical terminology to make their services
palatable. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—defines deception as a “rep-
resentation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting
reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment.” Practices are
unfair if they result in a substantial injury not outweighed by countervailing
benefits, which consumers could not have themselves reasonably avoided.
The FTC finds that “injury exists if consumers would have chosen differently
but for the deception.” The FTC seeks to protect vulnerable groups, including
children, the elderly, and the seriously ill, from unfair hindrances to free exer-
cise of consumer decision making. Thus, “seriously ill” consumers might be
“particularly susceptible to exaggerated cure claims.” Institutionalized elderly
people are a captive audience who may be more easily manipulated. Children
are “unqualified by age or experience to anticipate or appreciate the possibility
that representations may be exaggerated or untrue.” There are instances in
which CAM providers knowingly omit or misrepresent material information
about products and services in order to win a larger market share or govern-
ment funding. The healer-client relationship makes these representations per-
suasive, and the most targeted groups, including the desperately ill, elderly,
and schoolchildren, are least equipped to detect omissions or misrepresenta-
tions. Consumers are injured, even if products and services are effective, when
customers would have chosen differently but for the deception, especially if à
la carte choices lead to unintended religious transformations.32

The Responsibility of Consumers in a Democratic Society

In a market-driven health-care system, it is not always clear where provider
responsibility to disclose information ends and where patient responsibil-
ity to gather data begins. David Eisenberg, M.D., one of the groundbreaking
researchers on CAM usage, recommends a model of “shared responsibility for
investigating options.” According to sociologist Mary Ruggie, “we can surmise
that people are making their own decisions, perhaps searching for scientific
information in libraries or on the Internet, perhaps coming across anecdotes,
perhaps reaching deep inside themselves to discover their preferences.” In
218 the healing gods

practice, however, it may be the case that neither providers nor patients take
responsibility to collect substantial and unbiased information.33
The casualness with which health-care providers and consumers some-
times experiment with CAM comes through in an anecdote from field
research. On a January morning in 2010, the staff members of a California
subacute medical residence riveted their attention on TV’s The Dr. Oz Show
as Oz advocated yoga, acupuncture, aromatherapy, and energy medicine. As
Oz led his viewers through yoga postures, the residence’s assistant activities
director, Marsha, nudged her supervisor, Delva, to catch her attention so that
she, too, could do the yoga poses. Delva immediately and without question put
her hands up in the air to follow suit, although she vocally self-identifies as an
evangelical Christian. After doing yoga with Dr. Oz, Marsha read the news to
facility residents, in the middle of which she read aloud her horoscope. Then
it was time for a volunteer music therapist, Arlene—herself eighty-eight years
old—to play piano for the residents. Arlene attributed her healthful longevity
to reading Psalm 91 through three times every morning. Before beginning her
music, Arlene commented on the virtues associated with one resident’s astro-
logical sign. Then she played a sequence of Christian hymns from memory,
pausing regularly to say “God bless you” to various people in the room. Yoga,
horoscopes, astrology, and Christian language nonchalantly merged in this
medical center’s daily routine.34
Americans, preoccupied by pragmatic goals of relieving pain or achieving
optimal health, often combine therapeutic approaches without making con-
scious decisions to do so. The proliferation of health-care choices paradoxically
makes it more difficult to investigate thoroughly any one option as a result of
information overload. In an era of globalized advertising and the World Wide
Web, it is challenging to sift through the abundance of unfiltered information
available, much of which is designed to appeal to broad audiences and avoid
offending particular constituencies. Earlier chapters in this book show that
even presumably trusted information sources, such as the WHO, the congres-
sionally commissioned NCCAM, the prestigious Mayo Clinic, and individual
health-care providers, do not always disclose full, impartial information.
As patients navigate the health-care market, the post-nineteenth-century
reduction of pain to an adverse physical sensation and of wellness to a medi-
cal right accentuate questions of efficacy in comparing health-care options.
Immediate goals (pain relief) and beliefs (in a treatment’s efficacy) may
inhibit gaining substantial understanding of meanings commonly ascribed
to a treatment. Apparently effective therapies may or may not advance long-
range goals and values. This is significant given the phenomenon noted above
of practices changing beliefs. Pragmatic health-care choices may lead people
 Conclusion 219

to do things they would not otherwise choose to do and to believe things they
would not otherwise choose to believe, resulting in unintended and unnoticed
restructuring of worldviews.35
The values of personal autonomy and self-determination imply that peo-
ple may choose any or some combination of religious, spiritual, or medical
practices or reject them all. People may exercise agency by choosing to del-
egate health-care decisions to someone else. But autonomous decision mak-
ing requires intentionality. The problem of conscious choice is not unique to
CAM but applies equally to selection of conventional medical treatments and
more overtly religious practices such as church attendance. At issue—and this
is an important point—is not whether any particular option is good or bad or
whether it is “religious” or “Christian” but whether it is consciously or unre-
flectively selected. In the latter case, people may not even recognize that they
are making a decision, because their course of action seems obvious given
taken-for-granted assumptions and a pragmatic orientation.36
For America’s political and economic systems to function optimally, citizens
and consumers must base their decisions on full and accurate information.
This principle extends from health care to a wide range of human interactions,
including sexual relations, voting for political candidates, employment, and
commerce. The 2001 Nobel Prize in economics recognized the detrimental
effects of asymmetric information in market interactions, resulting in power
imbalances, adverse selection of low-quality products, and market failures.
The law can go some distance in protecting freedom of choice, but for choices
to be genuinely free, individuals must exercise civic responsibility to know
what they are choosing and why. The sociologist Robert Wuthnow observes a
post-1960s transition in American values from “freedom of conscience,” an
ability to choose right over wrong without external restraint, to “freedom of
choice,” an individual’s right to pick and choose from among market options.
Commercialization minimizes the “problem of choice” by removing the ele-
ment of sacrifice in choosing one alternative over another. Instead of commit-
ting to any one choice, consumers can, as a matter of convenience, sample
them all on a temporary basis.37
Theologically conservative Christians influenced by the Reformation
model of the priesthood of all believers share their nonevangelical compatri-
ots’ individualistic, consumer orientation to health care. Christians often use
relational language to describe themselves as seeking to “love God and love
people” in all they do, since these are the “greatest commandments” of the
Bible. Yet evangelicals envision health care as religiously neutral, and thus a
matter of personal, albeit biblically informed, choice. Popular Christian medi-
cal writer Reginald Cherry, M.D., advises Christian consumers that “whether
220 the healing gods

you should choose to pursue them [CAM] is a decision that should be made
after much prayer. The Holy Spirit guides us.” The evangelical watchdog
Gotquestions.org suggests that “with the freedom that we have in Christ,
decisions like whether or not to use alternative medicine are to be based on
our own biblically-informed convictions and preferences.” But “what we are
not free to do is to force our own convictions on others, especially in debat-
able areas such as alternative medicine.” This decision-making model does
not guarantee that individuals will base their choices on in-depth research
or substantial understanding or contemplate how health-care choices might
influence one’s own or other people’s religious choices. The propensity of
Americans, evangelicals among them, to replace decisions of conscience with
unthinking, pragmatic choices—especially when health is at stake—may have
an unforeseen consequence for those who have freed themselves from exter-
nal tyranny: subjection to internal tyranny of ignorance.38

CAM and the First Amendment

The establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution provide that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Courts
have grappled with the position of religion in public life given a Constitution
that seeks to safeguard both free exercise and disestablishment of religion.
There is a wide spectrum of opinion on how religion should be defined and
which activities the First Amendment restricts or protects. Some judicial
analysts hold that definitional questions are so thorny that courts should
not attempt definitions. Scholar of religion and law Winnifred Sullivan con-
cludes that “religion” is no longer a “useful term for U.S. law today, because
there is no longer any generally accepted referent,” and disestablishment
may be “anachronistic as a legal project.” Although I acknowledge the dif-
ficulties, I maintain that attempts to define religion—and interpret the First
Amendment in light of such definitions—can and should be made.39
Throughout this book, I have argued for a uniformly broad definition
of religion. Such a definition encompasses not only theistic beliefs but also
bodily practices perceived as connecting individuals with suprahuman ener-
gies, beings, or transcendent realities or as inducing heightened spiritual
awareness or virtues. By this definition, describing a practice as “scientific” or
as “spiritual but not religious” (i.e., unlike “Christian” religion), especially for
the purposes of making the practice appear more acceptable or gaining access
to secular institutions or government funding, does not remove that practice
from the realm of religion. This book contends that many CAM practices fit a
 Conclusion 221

broad definition of religion and that courts should use the same standards to
evaluate CAM that they use to assess practices such as prayer and Bible read-
ing that more people recognize as religious.
Although the establishment clause is often paraphrased as requiring sepa-
ration of church and state, at face value, the First Amendment more expan-
sively precludes government from preferring or disfavoring “religion.” This
language encompasses any religion, whether or not it is based in a church
or even recognized as “real” religion by Christians. According to Harvard
University professor of religion and law and advocate of religious pluralism
Diana Eck, the “American Constitution guarantees that there will be ‘no estab-
lishment’ of religion and that the ‘free exercise’ of religion will be protected,”
but the issues involved in “church-state relations . . . have become increasingly
complex in a multireligious America, where the church in question may be
the mosque, the Buddhist temple, the Hindu temple.” The courts have been
relatively more attuned (though certainly not uniformly) to protecting free
exercise of minority religions than to guarding against their establishment. In
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court held that government cannot “aid
those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those reli-
gions founded on different beliefs. . . . Among religions in this country which
do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of
God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”
In United States v. Seeger (1965), the Court defined religion broadly enough for
free-exercise purposes to allow draft exemptions to conscientious objectors
who did not affirm belief in God or a Supreme Being. In Employment Division
v. Smith (1990), the Court applied a broad definition of religion that includes
peyote use in the Native American church yet denied that practitioners should
be exempted from neutral laws that incidentally inhibited religious practice.40
Some legal scholars claim that religion should be defined broadly when
free exercise is involved and more narrowly in establishment-clause cases.
Other constitutional analysts reject dual definitions as discriminating against
commonly recognized religions in a manner unjustified by the wording of
the First Amendment or judicial precedent. Harvard Law Professor Laurence
Tribe, who argued for dual definitions in his 1978 constitutional-law textbook
called his own proposal a “dubious solution” in a 1988 revised edition. This
latter line of reasoning implies that the establishment clause, like the free
exercise clause, extends to religions for which practice is more central than
proclamation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made this
logic explicit in Malnak v. Yogi (1979). A concurring opinion by Judge Arlin
Adams inferred that “if a Roman Catholic is barred from receiving aid from
the government, so too should be a Transcendental Meditator.” Yet there is
222 the healing gods

a cultural reaction in America—one that affects legislation, funding alloca-

tions, and judicial interpretation—against what is perceived as centuries of
unwarranted dominance by Christian institutions and discrimination against
religious minorities. This reaction has—understandably and often with good
reason—generated corresponding efforts to compensate by making room for
other religions.41
Since the mid-twentieth century, courts have closely scrutinized Christian
religious practices, especially in public schools, where compulsory attendance
and the impressionability of children heighten risks of religious establish-
ment. Few challenges arose earlier, because the First Amendment was origi-
nally interpreted as applying to the federal government but not the states. In
Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court reasoned from the
Fourteenth Amendment that the establishment clause applies to state and
local governments, a doctrinal principle known as “incorporation.” The rul-
ing upheld a New Jersey law that used tax money to reimburse parents for
busing students to both Catholic and public schools, but the justices empha-
sized that the Court would not have allowed payments to go directly to schools.
Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion that “neither a state nor the Federal
Government . . . can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or pre-
fer one religion over another.” The Court reached a still more momentous
decision in Engel v. Vitale (1962), ruling that even “denominationally neutral,”
“voluntary” public-school-sponsored prayer violates the establishment clause.
Black reasoned that the “power, prestige, and financial support of govern-
ment” exerts an “indirect coercive pressure.” A concurring opinion by Justice
William Douglas more pointedly denied that “Government can constitution-
ally finance a religious exercise.” Even if children are not required to partici-
pate, an “element of coercion is inherent,” because “every such audience is in
a sense a ‘captive’ audience.” The following year, in School District of Abington
Township v. Schempp (1963), the Court ruled against school-sponsored Bible
reading. In writing for the majority, Justice Thomas Clark followed the reason-
ing of Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent in Everson: that public schools should
provide a “secular education,” imparting “needed temporal knowledge,” while
maintaining a “strict and lofty neutrality as to religion.” These landmark rul-
ings found it impermissible for public schools, as government agents, to
endorse even formally voluntary religious activities.42
When courts reason from case to case, justices look for similarities and
develop doctrinal “tests” to apply a rule of law inherent in one case to another
based on fundamental constitutional values. The dominant values for today’s
Supreme Court are religious equality, or nondiscrimination, and religious vol-
untarism, or freedom to make choices without compulsion or subtly coercive
 Conclusion 223

influences. The Supreme Court has developed three tests for use in estab-
lishment-clause cases: the Lemon test, the endorsement test, and the coercion
test. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court disallowed a Pennsylvania policy
of reimbursing salaries and instructional materials for secular instruction in
parochial schools, in the process articulating a three-part test. First, the statute
must have a “secular legislative purpose”; second, the primary effect must be
one that neither “advances nor inhibits religion”; third, it must not foster an
“excessive government entanglement with religion.” Although the Lemon test
has been widely criticized, courts still use it, though sometimes folding the
entanglement prong into the effect assessment.43
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor devised the endorsement test as a “clarifica-
tion” of the Lemon test in her concurring opinion for Lynch v. Donnelly (1984),
which allowed inclusion of a crèche in a Christmas display. Courts ask whether
a “reasonable” or “objective” observer, someone with sufficient information
about history and context, would see in the government’s action a message
that endorses a particular religion or religion in general over irreligion, either
deliberately or in effect. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the Supreme Court
denied that an avowed secular legislative purpose, in this case protection of
academic freedom, should be allowed to mask the purpose of endorsing reli-
gion, in this instance by promoting creationism.44
The Court added the coercion test in Lee v. Weisman (1992), which ruled
against prayer at graduation ceremonies. Justice Anthony Kennedy (applying
Douglas’s reasoning in Engel) delivered the Court’s opinion that even if stu-
dents are not actively coerced to participate, they face “subtle coercive . . . public
pressure, as well as peer pressure” to participate passively, and “this pressure,
though subtle and indirect, can be as real as any overt compulsion.” The Court
used all three tests in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) to
invalidate a public-school policy of allowing student-led prayer at football
games.45
It is my contention that public-school sponsorship of CAM practices such
as yoga and meditation, as discussed in chapter 7 above, involves issues simi-
lar to prayer and Bible reading. Following Edwards, a stated secular purpose,
such as making better students and teachers—a claim commonly made for
mindfulness meditation—should not be allowed to mask the purpose or effect
of advancing or endorsing religion. As part of Tara Guber’s Yoga Ed. program
for K–12 public schools, federal grant money pays for public-school gym teach-
ers to take certification classes at religious yoga studios. In order to grasp
the significance of this self-proclaimed “Vedic victory,” one must recall that
Guber admitted to—even bragged about—using subterfuge to get what she
construed as a Hindu practice into public schools with direct federal funding,
224 the healing gods

because she was confident that practicing yoga would change religious beliefs.
Insisting that metaphysical practices are broadly spiritual rather than advanc-
ing any one religion parallels the assertion that prayers are denominationally
neutral, an allegation that failed to save school prayer. Moreover, the Court has
held that religion should not be advanced over irreligion. Evidence presented
above illustrates that efforts by CAM promoters to advance religion influence
students to make religious choices they would not otherwise make. An ele-
ment of coercion is inherent in classroom yoga or meditation, even if students
are allowed to opt out, which may not be the case in for-credit physical educa-
tion. Although college students may be less religiously impressionable than
younger students, they are more susceptible to other pressures, such as main-
taining a high grade-point average to be competitive for jobs or postgradu-
ate education. Ultimately, allowing yoga or meditation but not prayer or Bible
reading in public schools distributes discriminatory benefits and burdens to
different religions, contrary to the values of religious equality and religious
voluntarism.46
Alongside the question of whether public schools should endorse religious
practices is the question of whether government funds can be used for reli-
gious activities or institutions. Past courts ruled against the constitutionality
of any government funding. To quote Everson, “no tax in any amount, large or
small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, what-
ever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion.” Recent court rulings make two basic distinctions: between indirect
and direct funding programs and between support of secular and religious
activities. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Supreme Court permit-
ted government funding of school vouchers, since the money is distributed
on a nondiscriminatory basis to individuals who may choose to use vouch-
ers at religious or nonreligious institutions. Although recent rulings are also
more lenient toward direct funding, they preserve the distinction that govern-
ment cannot directly fund religious activities. Agostini v. Felton (1997) allowed
supplemental instruction of disadvantaged students at religious schools by
public-school teachers, and Mitchell v. Helms (2000) permitted federal loans
of instructional materials to parochial schools.47
Despite judicial restraints on government support of religious activi-
ties—whatever they may be called and whatever form they may adopt—CAM
promoters have secured government support, including direct funding for
activities that fit a broad definition of religion. Thanks to lobbying by homeo-
pathic patron U.S. Senator Royal Copeland, the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act of 1938 incorporated the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the
United States, a list of accepted homeopathic remedies that has remained
 Conclusion 225

in continuous publication since 1897. In 1974, Congress authorized expen-

diture of $2 million to seek a scientific basis for chiropractic. Tom Harkin,
Democratic Senator from Iowa since 1985, backs bee pollen and acupuncture;
Orrin Hatch, Republican Senator from Utah since 1977, advocates chiropractic
and dietary supplements. Together, Harkin and Hatch pushed to establish the
NCCAM and White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative
Medicine. An early leader in the TM movement, Deepak Chopra, M.D., served
on an NIH Ad Hoc Panel on Alternative Medicine in 1992. The following year,
the OAM (now NCCAM), gave Chopra $30,000 to look for scientific evidence
supporting Ayurvedic medicine, even though Chopra apparently intended to
use any evidence found to advance religious ideas, for instance, that “there is
no other I than the entire universe. . . . I am omnipresent, omniscient; I am
the eternal spirit that animates everything in existence.” In 1999, the NCCAM
gave $8 million to the Maharishi International University of Management—a
Hindu institution founded to promote TM—for the purpose of seeking scien-
tific evidence of TM’s benefits. By 2004, Maharishi University had received
$20 million in government support for TM research. These funding alloca-
tions came even after Malnak v. Yogi prohibited teaching TM in public schools
because doing so established religion.48
Examples of direct government funding for CAM can be multiplied. In
the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Division of
Nursing gave a $200,000 grant to D’Youville Nursing Center in Buffalo, New
York, to train students in Therapeutic Touch, and the Department of Defense
granted $355,000 to University of Alabama researchers to study Therapeutic
Touch for burn patients. The OAM funded ten CAM research centers in 1993.
In 2003, sixteen CAM research centers received NCCAM funding, includ-
ing the Complementary and Alternative Medical Research Center at the
University of Michigan, cofounded by Reiki healer Elena Gillespie. In 2013,
the NCCAM funded seventeen CAM centers, among them the Palmer College
of Chiropractic, programs using osteopathy and acupuncture, and two centers
offering Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction. Courts in New York City and
Portland, Oregon, now mandate inclusion of acupuncture in drug-detoxifica-
tion programs. Counties in Florida and Maryland give drug offenders a choice
between acupuncture and jail. The Federal Acupuncture Coverage Act of 2011
introduced in the House of Representatives would amend Medicare and the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to cover “qualified acupuncturist
services.” Although not signed into law as of 2012, there is reason to expect
passage of similar legislation in the not-too-distant future. A more amus-
ing example comes from Cambridge, Massachusetts, where in 2010, the city
government added to parking-ticket envelopes pictures of yoga asanas with
226 the healing gods

instructions on how to do them. Officials interviewed said that the motive

was to encourage a “peaceful exchange” between officers and the public, given
that police distribute 340,000 parking tickets (for a population of 106,000) in
Cambridge annually. At best, this is an idiosyncratic use of public funds and,
at worst, governmental indoctrination that endorses religion.49
When government granting agencies allocate funds selectively through
case-by-case evaluation rather than through general funding programs,
there is heightened risk of discriminating in favor of certain religious groups
and against others. Funding allocations do not simply reflect the standards
of evidence-based medicine. In today’s cultural climate, it is hard to imag-
ine the NCCAM funding research on the efficacy of Christian healing-prayer
practices, although numerous published studies report health benefits from
Christian prayer and churchgoing. Yet CAM advocates use studies claiming
efficacy to justify government support of metaphysical healing despite an
absence of evidence that practices such as meditation and yoga are more effec-
tive than Christian practices or nonreligious physical exercise and relaxation
in reducing stress or conveying other health benefits. If the same logic were
followed for CAM as for Christian prayer—in other words, if the law equally
protected and restrained both sets of practices—neither would be funded by
the public purse. The problem with government funding for CAM is not that
government is backing unproven therapies nor even that CAM is religious but
that in supporting CAM, government de facto endorses religion above irreli-
gion and certain kinds of religion above others.50
Courts have been particularly sensitive to protecting religious minori-
ties from dominant religions. Justice O’Connor observed that government
endorsement of religion “sends a message to nonadherents that they are out-
siders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying
message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political
community.” Government endorsement of once minority but now increas-
ingly mainstream CAM practices might inflict a psychological assault on the
irreligious and on other religious groups who do not accept vitalistic religion.
For instance, some Muslim leaders warn that “religious elements” in yoga
“can destroy the faith of a Muslim.” Moreover, evangelical Christianity is not
as dominant in today’s culture as it once was, heightening the need for protec-
tion from disapproving messages.51
Government endorsement of CAM practices that take “ancient” or
“Eastern” healing arts from cultures romanticized as mysterious, spiritual,
and wise is ironic given outcries raised by traditional practitioners who resent
what they view as neocolonial, therapeutic imperialism. Native Americans pro-
test that European-Americans misinterpret and exploit without permission or
 Conclusion 227

remuneration sacred healing traditions, while obscuring histories of violence

and ongoing social and economic struggles. The government of India estab-
lished a task force on traditional knowledge and intellectual-property theft in
2005 to oppose “yoga piracy” by making digital copies of ancient drawings
that show the provenance of more than four thousand yoga poses. Efforts by
the U.S. government to protect rights of CAM practitioners and to encour-
age further adoption through sponsored research and services may come at
the expense of the rights of those who own or at least developed borrowed
traditions.52

Final Reflections
The mainstreaming of CAM in America is a remarkable cultural progression.
The preceding chapters tell the story of how health-care practices once widely
regarded as medically and religiously illegitimate—largely because of their
metaphysical goal of achieving harmony with life-force energy—are becoming
integrated into secular and Christian settings. Various holistic providers have
carved out somewhat different market niches as they appeal to diverse but
overlapping clienteles who desire a range of physical, emotional, and spiritual
benefits. From yoga’s promise of optimal wellness for the relatively fit to anti-
cancer alternatives that offer hope to the desperately ill, some form of CAM
appears to be right for everyone. To date, certain healing practices, such as
acupuncture and chiropractic, have come further than others, such as energy
medicine, in moving from the fringes to the center of American culture. Given
current trajectories, we may soon expect to see even more now-marginal prac-
tices culturally reconstituted as at once spiritual, scientific, and comfortably
accommodated within American democracy and evangelical Christianity.
Contrary to secularization theories that posit the growing privatization
of religion, religiously infused health-care practices are moving into secular
settings and the political arena, as individuals demand their rights to use—
and be reimbursed for using—the diverse array of therapies that they have
intermingled all along. Privatization has not meant disappearance of religion
from public spaces but emphasis on techniques over theories, practices over
philosophies. As historian Robert Johnston argues, CAM has an extraordi-
nary capacity to combine ideologies from the political left and right, such as
antiprofessionalism and individual responsibility, thereby transcending politi-
cal—and religious—categories to win a broad spectrum of defenders. In an
era when the political power of evangelical and CAM constituencies is of great
media interest, largely unrecognized intersections of these communities
with one another and orthodox medicine warrant reflection. American liberal
228 the healing gods

democracy may, as political scientist Fred Frohock cautions, prove ill equipped
to develop neutral procedures for regulating practices that blend metaphysi-
cal, evangelical, and scientific assumptions about the nature of reality.53
Holistic healing has not become mainstream because it is nonreligious,
Christian, or demonstrably effective and safe. Rather, CAM has, for reasons of
demand and supply, become integrated into the health-care market despite the
absence of strong scientific support. By a halo effect, selective presentation of
positive findings for certain CAM therapies lends scientific legitimacy to all of
CAM. We can expect that CAM will become even more commonplace in years
to come and that conservative Christians will be among CAM’s most avid
devotees. Even so, CAM has not become popular among Christians because
its roots and fruits are distinctively Christian. Evangelicals who disdain reli-
gious combinations as idolatrous worship of other gods domesticate healing
practices rooted in and productive of metaphysical religion by linguistically
reclassifying these practices from the category of illegitimate “New Age” spiri-
tuality to that of scientifically legitimate, effective therapeutics. When health
becomes the driving imperative, people who condemn theological relativism
accept therapeutic relativism. This is significant given evidence of health-care
practices changing religious beliefs. Therapeutic relativism can unwittingly
lead to theological relativism. What people do with their bodies may express
and influence what they value more transparently than what people say they
believe. Where there is tension between beliefs and practices, actions may
speak louder than words.
Holistic providers have done more to investigate—and alleviate—Christian
concerns than Christians have done to investigate CAM. Because monistic
worldviews postulate that nonspecific spiritual interventions are compatible
with all religious traditions, providers may in good faith perform practices
without recognizing that they could conflict with exclusivist views of monothe-
istic patients. Yet there is evidence that certain CAM providers intentionally
withhold religious information or occlude it with scientific or blandly spiritual
language to make CAM acceptable to patients and gain access to secular set-
tings and government funding. Holistic healers may be reluctant to provide
information about CAM’s vitalistic premises because doing so could cause
them to lose clients. Providers might demur that such information would
unnecessarily confuse patients and make it more difficult to offer treatment
that providers consider beneficial. Yet fundamental to autonomous decision
making and self-determination is that individuals have a right to refuse benefi-
cial treatments. It is problematic when CAM providers offer potentially objec-
tionable services without equipping patients or legal representatives to give
 Conclusion 229

or withhold informed consent. It is equally problematic when patients fail

to consider how treatment options fit their own long-range goals and values.
The implications of CAM’s mainstreaming, the processes through which
it has occurred, and the contexts where CAM receives institutional support
merit consideration by health-care consumers, providers, policy makers, and
courts. At stake are informed decision making in the health-care marketplace;
protection of consumers, especially vulnerable ones, from selective, decep-
tive, or fraudulent representations that may induce people to make different
choices from those they would make otherwise; and boundaries between reli-
gion and government. If more people knew more about CAM, some might
think differently about how, where, or whether it should be used and who
should pay the tab. Consumers might reevaluate CAM’s religious status and
perhaps avoid participating or join in more selectively. Conventional doctors
and policy makers might reconsider how or if CAM should be integrated into
health-care markets. The courts might review government sponsorship of
CAM where it entails endorsing religion. Asking why CAM is supposed to
work informs choices about health and religion.
This page intentionally left blank
 Notes

in t roduc t ion

1. I use the older, Wade-Giles romanization system (Taoism) rather than the mod-
ern, Pinyin system (Daoism), following the usage of most of my primary sources
and some scholars, who are divided. But because my sources usually refer to
qi (Pinyin) rather than ch’i (Wade-Giles), I follow my sources for clarity at the
expense of absolute consistency. I omit most diacritical marks for translitera-
tions to enhance readability for nonspecialists.
2. Whorton 2002, 223; Beardsley 1924, 275; Eisenberg et al. 1993, 246; Eisenberg
et al. 1998, 1572.
3. White House Commission 2002, 9; Ledermann 1986, xxi; Coward 2008, 31;
Smuts 1926, 146.
4. Klassen 2011, 111; Fuller 1989, 92; Hufford and Bucklin 2006, 28. The term
metaphysical may denote any belief that a spiritual realm exists (by which defini-
tion Christianity fits); I instead follow Albanese 2007, 6, in finding a narrower
definition to be clearer. The term occult is sometimes used as a synonym for
metaphysical, but, like Albanese, I avoid this term because of its confusingly
pejorative and narrow connotations.
5. Whorton 2002, xii; Harrington 2008, 223.
6. Syman 2010, 5; Fuller 2008, 149.
7. Klassen 2011, 7; Benz 1989, 2; Barr 2003, 227–232; NCCAM 2007, 3.
8. Oschman 2000, 78; Hutchison 1999, 43–45; Koontz 2003, 103; Carroll 2010;
NCCAM 2007, 3.
9. Koontz 2003, 102; Oschman 2002, 33–35; Poulin 2004, 11. Oschman’s online
CV (Oschman 2013) indicates that his only nonvisiting faculty appointment was
as an assistant professor at Northwestern University, 1970–1974.
10. Vickers 1984, 15; White 2013; Fernflores 2010; Sayre-Adams and Wright 2001,
6–7; Heisenberg 1930, 10–12.
11. Harrington 2008, 241–242; Sood 2010, 95.
12. Butler 1990, 230–233.
13. Ward 2006, 23; Mullin 1996, 13; Porter 1999, 373; Winiarski 2005, 163.
232 Notes

14. Butler 1990, 231–233.

15. Numbers 1978, 226; Cayleff 1987, 6; Rosenberg 1979, 14–15.
16. Whorton 2002, 25; Braude 2001, 6; Rothstein 1988, 41; Nissenbaum 1980, 7–8,
19–20; Abzug 1994, 165–182; Graham 1837, 22, 102; Curtis 2007, 6.
17. Numbers 1978, 231; Edelson 1994, 67.
18. Numbers 2003, 266; Leavitt and Numbers 1978, 8; King 1984, 1079; Foucault
1975, 120; Whorton 2002, 246.
19. Reed 1932, 1; Numbers 1978, 233; Johnston 2004, 2.
20. Ariel 1999, 237. I capitalize Pentecostal for denominations that trace origins to
the Azusa Street revival of 1906 and Charismatic for renewals birthed in the
1960s, using lower-case for pentecostal as an umbrella term.
21. Pope Paul VI 1964; Pope Paul VI 1965; Kennedy 1995, 11–14; Ratzinger 1989;
Pontifical Council 2003; Lori et al. 2009, 4–5.
22. Whorton 2002, 245; “Maureen,” interview, October 30, 2009, in Vasko 2009, 13.
I use pseudonyms (recognizable by the use of first or last name only) to protect
informants; I use real names when quoting written statements by public figures
or published authors.
23. White House Commission 2002, 14, 31; Deloitte Development 2010; O’Connell
2012; Goldstein 1999, 123; NCCAM 2012b; Brown 2009.
24. Whorton 2002, x, 243, 285, 295, 302; Committee on Quackery, quoted in
Kaptchuk and Eisenberg 1998, 2219; JAMA 1998.
25. AARP and NCCAM 2007.
26. Field 2009, 6.
27. Barnes, Bloom, and Nahin 2008, 3–4, 6.
28. Lerner and Kennedy 1992, 185, 189–190; Bausell, Lee, and Berman 2001, 190;
Eisenberg et al. 1993, 246; Langer 2005; Oldendick et al. 2000, 377; Richardson
et al. 2000, 2505; Bishop, Yardley, and Lewith 2008, 1700.
29. Wallis, Horowitz, and Lafferty 1991.
30. Kosmin and Keysar 2009, 3; Barna Group 2008; Smidt et al. 1999, 120; Noll
2001, 31; Brown 2004, 1–7.
31. Noll 2001, 2; Brown 2004, 1.
32. Noll, Hatch, and Marsden 1983, 28–46; Whitten 1999, 3; Fea 2011, 7; Albanese
1990, 55–56; Hodapp 2007, 110; Campbell 1999, 52.
33. Deuteronomy 12:29–31; 1 Kings 9:9, 2 Kings 17; Jeremiah 44:17. Unless oth-
erwise specified, biblical quotations are from the New International Version
(NIV), the version most often used by my sources.
34. Bercovitch 1978, 93.
35. Ibid., 31–34; Eck 2001, 42.
36. James 1902, 337.
37. Festinger 1957, 3; Wuthnow 2007, 106; Hall 1997, viii.
38. Brown 2012, 192. All human subjects research received IRB approval: Saint
Louis University 13946; Indiana University 06-11383, 0902000055.
 Notes 233

c h a p t er 1

1. Durkheim 1933, 131; Albanese 2013, 2–9; Pals 1996, 10–12; Smith 2004, 179–
196; Orsi 2005, 183–198; Tweed 2006, 73; Kunin 2003, 3; Barnes and Sered 2005.
2. Fessenden 2007, 4; Klassen 2011, 60; Bebbington 1989, 2–17; O’Toole 2004, 1.
3. King 1999, 3; Eck 2001, 4.
4. Fuller 2001, 5; Wuthnow 2007, 134; Stark 2008, 88.
5. Gould 1997, 19; Zurcher 1959, 141; Barnes 2005, 3; Croizier 1968, 13–35.
6. King 1999, 151; McMahan 2002, 219–222; Tweed 1992, 103–115; Seager 1999, 6,
90–92, 109, 129; Donahue 1993, 118.
7. Eck 2001, 186; King 1999, 157; Soyen 1896, 139; Habito, quoted in Seager 1999,
225; Maria Kannon Zen Center 2010.
8. McMahan 2002, 218.
9. Bauer et al. 2010, 16–17; Sood 2010, 95–96, 113.
10. Arriaza 2009, 287; Tan 2004, 170; Draeger 1996, 134–136; Funakoshi 1973, 3–6;
Haines 1995, 172; Umezawa 1998, 10–11; Donahue 1993, 105, 113, 120–121.
11. McMahan 2009, 18–21; Zurcher 1959, 288–290.
12. Farnsworth et al. 1985, 966; Goldstein 1999, 62–64; Gladstar 1999, 24; Williams
1979, 22–27; Krippner and Colodzin 1981, 14; Trotter and Chavira 1997, 77–80;
Brandon 1991, 58.
13. Khandavalli 2008; Berry 2007; Campbell and Campbell 2006, 21.
14. Albanese 2007, 76–78; Ahlstrom 2004, 51; Moore 1993, 7–9.
15. Still 1910, 145; Gevitz 1988a, 124–156; Albanese 1990, 142; NCCAM 2012a, 1.
16. Peterson 1998, 53; Spaeth 2000, 641; Osteopathic Medical College 2008, 6;
Shulman 2007; Mercola 2013a; Mercola 2013b.
17. Haller 2005, 53; Whorton 2002, 18.
18. Rowe 2005, 83–84; Haller 2009, 19, 235; Hahnemann 1810, 9, 11, 20, 52;
Hahnemann 1846, 141; Haller 2005, 30; Whorton 2002, 58–59; Coulter 1973,
57; Ramey and Rollin 2003, 37.
19. Shelton 2004, 58, 70, 267–272; Park 2008, 144–146; Economist.com 2012.
20. Kaufman 1988, 100–101; Haller 2005, 40–41, 59–66, 150–151, 238; Benz 2002,
487; Crompton 2005, 76; Hahnemann and Gram 1825; Coulter 1973, 102; Kent
2002, 108, 120; Dale 1989.
21. Shelton 2004, 48–49, 227–239; Bolte 1976, 12; Jayne 2013; “Tess,” interview, in
Bender 2010, 25.
22. Lust, quoted in Whorton 2002, 224; “Dr. Matthews,” interview, in Grise 2009, 2;
Connolly 2010; Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges 2013;
American Association of Naturopathic Physicians 2012.
23. Fischer-Rizzi 1990, 9; Worwood 1999, 8–9, 16.
24. Hess 2002, 87; Gerson and Walker 2001, 220; Lowell 2006; CDC 1981; Budwig
2010, 181; Breuss 1995, 29; Godin 2013;Winter 2013; Rudolf Steiner Health
Center 2010; Essiacinfo.org 2007.
234 Notes

25. Walters 1993, 155; Wigmore 1975, 31, 57; Jarvis 2001.
26. Raposa 2003, 40–41; Kuriyama 1999, 229, 266; Porkert 1974, 67; Carter 2004,
54–56, 59; Sutherland 2000, 41; Barnes 2005, 4.
27. Holcombe 1990, 422; T. A. Green 2001, 2: 382–391; Martinez 2009, 302; Raposa
2007, 167; Gilligan 2010, 13–27, 31–46, 59–68; Patience T’ai Chi Association
2012a; Patience T’ai Chi Association 2012b; Jou 1985, 181; Barnes, Bloom, and
Nahin 2008, 10.
28. Kushi and Blauer 1985, xi, 94–107; Ohsawa 1965; Barrett 2010; Hess 2002,
81–88; Kushi 1977, xv, 66, 103–104, 119, 159–163 (emphasis in original); Kushi
and Jack 2009, 20; Kushi 2004.
29. Knierim 2013; Seager 1999, 15, 24.
30. Seager 1999, 16; Loizzo, Charlson, and Peterson 2009, 133.
31. Psalm 1:2; Stock 2001, 105; McGinn 2006, 66; Williams 2006, 5.
32. Seager 1999, 254; Kabat-Zinn 1990, xvii, 21; Kabat-Zinn 1994, xvi, 4.
33. Kabat-Zinn 1994, 4–6, 263; Kabat-Zinn 1990, 12–13; Center for Mindfulness 2013b.
34. Kabat-Zinn 1990, 1–2, 12–13, 33, 38, 95; Kabat-Zinn 1994, 4.
35. Loizzo, Charlson, and Peterson 2009, 136–142.
36. Harp and Smiley 2007.
37. King 1999, 3; Worthington 1982, 5; Alter 2004, 247.
38. Woo 2008; “The TM Craze” 1975.
39. Yogi 1968, 177–178; TM.org 2012b; Smith 1975, 123.
40. Page and Hoyle 2008.
41. Biofeedback Certification Alliance 2012.
42. Wallis, Horowitz, and Lafferty 1991; Hartley and Hartley 1974; Green and Green
1977, 123; International Society 2012; Universal Awakening 2007; Green 1999,
221; Walsh 1992; Green 2001, 4; Green, quoted in Pressman 2003.
43. Brown 1980, 252; Pelletier 1977, 322; Moss 2002, 288.
44. Goldstein 1999, 108–109. People draw from multiple worldviews in ways that
defy neat categorizations, as, for instance, Ward 2006, 11, shows for vitalistic
evangelicals.
45. Cox 1999, 390.

c h a p t er 2

1. Boon 2007, 3-4; Boon 2010.

2. Boon 2007, xv, 32; Boon 2010; Singleton 2010, 29.
3. Singleton 2010, 4; White 2011, 6.
4. Jacobsen 2005, 7; White 2011, 8; Shvetashvatara Upanishad 4:17, Taittiriya
Upanishad 1.8.1, Bhagavad Gita 7:8, quoted in Babamani 2013; Yoga Sutras 1:2,
quoted in Aranya 1963, 6–11; Lidell 1983, 15; Strauss 2005, 2–5; King 1999, 181;
Raposa 2003, 68; Berry 1992, 94.
5. Rieker 1971, 101; Krishna 1975, 13; Syman 2010, 5.
 Notes 235

6. Singleton 2010, 27–29; White 2011, 10–11, 16; Varenne 1976, 15.
7. Singleton 2010, 70, 77; White 2011, 11–12, 17–18, 21.
8. Singleton 2010, 5, 22, 91–92, 114, 129, 152–158, 175–180; White 2011, 21.
9. Syman 2010, 14, 26; Macshane 1964, 322–323.
10. De Michelis 2004, 3; Eck 2001, 100; Vivekananda, Works, vol. 8, quoted in Syman
2010, 45–49, 55–56; Singleton 2010, 4–5, 71, 80; White 2011, 21; Forstater and
Manuel 2002, 142; Descartes 1649, 232.
11. White 2011, 20; Blavatsky 1888, 289–306; Yogananda 1946; Yogananda 1993; Eck
2001, 105; Alter 2004, 32.
12. Love 2006, 84.
13. Singleton 2010, 175; Devi 1953; Devi 1959, 128–135.
14. Hittleman 1969, 12–13, 135; Leviton 1993, 68; Brown 1979, 7; Syman 2010,
246–247.
15. Judith Lasater, interview, September 24, 2008, in Syman 2010, 244, 248, 262; Lee
2011, 45–46, 50; Woodard 2011.
16. Syman 2010, 283; “Madonna Lyrics” 2013.
17. Bikram Yoga 2013; Shakespeare 2006, 38; Syman 2010, 281.
18. Smith 2012; Moran 2006.
19. AYA 2013; Catalfo 2001; Swamiji 2011.
20. AYA 2013; Swamiji 2011; Shukla 2010; interview, September 15, 2009, in Lennox
2009, 11.
21. Singleton 2010, 27; Banuet-Alvers 1996, 22; Advaita Yoga Ashrama 2013;
Abhyasi 2010.
22. “Marge,” “Alejandra,” “Brianna,” interviews, March 2–3, 2010, in Metroka 2010,
10–13; Desmond 2011.
23. Huffstutter 2009.
24. Tiwari 2006; Prem 2006; Bharati 2013; Shukla 2010.
25. Bernard, “The Psychological Basis of Yoga,” c. 1939, BANC MSS 2005.161z,
quoted in Syman 2010, 135; Radha 2006, 26, 33–34.
26. Indiana University Recreational Sports 2010–2011; Syman, interview, in Mohler
2010a; Syman 2010, 100.
27. Ward 1817, 1:xii, xxxix; Saper 2004, 44; O’Neal 2007.
28. Assemblies of God USA 2013; Robaina 2005a; Pavlik 2001, 50; Alves 2003.
29. Galanos 2007; Press 2012; Mohler 2010b; Montenegro 2009; Hunt 2006, 23.
30. Ogle 2012; Isacowitz 2006, xiii, 9.
31. Groothuis, interview, in Mohler 2010a; Gotquestions.org 2013e; Gotquestions.
org 2013c.
32. Lovan 2010; Mohler 2010c; Rock 2004, 96; Becca, March 13, 2008, and D. Sleezer,
October 15, 2007, in Amazon.com 2013.
33. Klassen 2011, 7; Paul 2009, 1, 4, 11, 34, 62–63.
34. Klassen 2005, 382; advertisement for Yoga Prayer in Ryan 2004; interviews, in La
Reau 2005, 15.
236 Notes

35. Roth 2001, xvi–xvii, 1, 14, 75.

36. Bordenkircher 2006, 3, 8, 17; Bordenkircher 2013.
37. Press 2007; Germantown Baptist Church 2013.
38. Ly 2006; Turner and Cunningham 2007; Tennant 2005; Alter 2003; Martin
2013.
39. Monica 2013; “Molly,” interview, August 31, 2011, by Erin Garvey.
40. Willis 2013; Robaina 2005b, 41.
41. Tennant 2005; Dillon, interview, in Lovan 2010; Boon 2007, 38.

c h a p t er 3

1. Noll 2001, 159.

2. Peretti 2003, cover; “Dr. Taylor,” interview, October 30, 2009, in Vasko 2009, 16.
3. De Castro, Oropeza, and Rhodes 1994, 2 (emphasis in original); Gotquestions.
org 2013b; Gotquestions.org 2013a; Gotquestions.org 2013d.
4. John 15:15; Matthew 7:17, 20.
5. Anderson and Jacobson 2003, 242, 253, 257; Pfeifer 1988, 67 (emphasis in
original).
6. DiscernIt 2007.
7. Miller 1987, 19; Fish 1995, 34, 38; Nurses Christian Fellowship, 1996, quoted in
Wuthnow 1997, 226.
8. Pfeifer 1988, 103, 106; H. J. Bopp, Homeopathy, trans. Marvyn Kilgore, 1984,
quoted in Cloud 2009; Skyrme 1995, 5.
9. Skyrme 1995, 5–19, 74, 105–118. Some pentecostals deny that Christians can be
demonized.
10. Mullin 1996, 16; Delbanco 1995, 14; Nietzsche 1887, 108.
11. One Christian Ministry 2009a; O’Mathúna and Larimore 2006, 127, 131; Dager
1989, 2.
12. Robaina 2005a.
13. Anderson and Jacobson 2003, 176; “Discerning the Healing Spirits” 1998.
14. Lori et al. 2009, 4; O’Mathúna and Larimore 2006, 146, 149, 246–248; Pfeifer
1988, 40, 81–82; O’Mathúna 2001, 7.
15. Shelly, quoted in Maxwell 1996, 97; Newport 1998, 356.
16. Howard and Streck 1996; McLuhan 1964, 7; Wimber 1987, 6, 274–275 n. 4.
17. Burch 2010, 4.
18. Williamson 2004, 15–16, 19–20; CMAN 2012a; Chen 2002, 13–14, 26, 55.
19. Finch 1999, ix, 4; Graham, Litt, and Irwin 1998, 95; Epperly and Epperly 2005, 60,
79; ChristianReiki.org 2013; White 2013; Hannon 2013; Smith 2000, 116–117.
20. Romans 10:9 (NKJV); Don-Wauchope 1993, 3–4, 11, 32–33, 43–45.
21. Kline 2013; Monte Kline, quoted in Ankerberg and Weldon 1996, 174–175;
Youngblood 2012.
22. One Christian Ministry 2009a; Yin Yang House 2013.
 Notes 237

23. Rocca 2010; Wuthnow 1997, 228; de Castro, Oropeza, and Rhodes 1994, 3;
Williamson 2002, 13–15; CMAN 2012b.
24. Covington 2006, 5, 20–22, 47, 106; Covington and Lumpkin 2004, 13–15, 160.
25. “Deborah,” quoted in Krieger 1979, 132.
26. Male 1989, 1–9.
27. Ullman 2007, 303–304.
28. Genesis 1:29, 9:3, 6:1; Psalm 90:10; Malkmus, Shockey, and Shockey 2006, 63;
Hallelujah Acres 2013b; Hallelujah Acres 2013a.
29. Williamson 2004, 14–15; CMAN 2012a.
30. White 2010; Williamson 2002, 12; Jaramillo 2007; Asay 2007a.
31. Mebane 2013; Rand 1991.
32. British Homoeopathic Association 1994, 44; Don-Wauchope 1993, 4; Kah,
quoted in Asay 2007b; One Christian Ministry 2009a; One Christian Ministry
2009b.
33. Biblical Discernment Ministries 1992; One Christian Ministry 2009b;
“Discerning the Healing Spirits” 1998.
34. “Margaret,” e-mail, in Carter 2010b; British Homoeopathic Association 1994,
44; Covington and Lumpkin 2004, 78.
35. Covington and Lumpkin 2004, 76; Bob Jones University 2013; Bob Jones
University 1992; Cline 2012; Beals 2013; Beals 2011; Renkin 2012; Graham, Litt,
and Irwin 1998, 46–47; Chuster, quoted in Maxwell 1996, 98.
36. Jones 2013.
37. Gotquestions.org 2013b; Gotquestions.org 2013a; Chadwick 2008.

c h a p t er 4

1. “Betty” and “Bob,” e-mails to author, March 31, 2006.

2. White and Skipper 1971, 300; Wiese 2000, 245.
3. Morris 1991, 4–5.
4. Donahue 1987, 23–25; Palmer 1910, 18, 501, 718; Folk 2006, 109–125; Gibbons
1977, 721; Gielow 1981, 82–83; Albanese 1990, 149–150.
5. Vern Gielow, interview, summer 1982, in Albanese 1990, 151; Martin 1994,
213; Moore 1993, 23; Palmer 1910, 446, 491–493, 642, 691; Palmer 1914, 10;
Donahue 1987, 26. Wardwell 1992, 180–181, denies that Palmer considered chi-
ropractic a religion. After quoting a lengthy passage in which Palmer identifies
the “religion of chiropractic” as belief in Universal Intelligence, “segmented
into as many parts as there are individual expressions of life,” Wardwell
protests: “If this is religion, it certainly is not Christian. Basically, D. D. did
not consider chiropractic a religion.” Wardwell’s word choice indicates that
Palmer’s explicitly “religious” views did not strike Wardwell as “Christian” and
that Wardwell considered theistic religions such as Christianity to be the only
genuine religions.
238 Notes

6. The Chiropractor 5 (1909): frontispiece, quoted in Fuller 1989, 72; Palmer 1910,
8, 492.
7. Keating 1997, vi; Palmer, Do Chropractors Pray? 25 (emphasis in original), 27–28;
Palmer 1949, 65; B. J. Palmer, lecture notes, October 21, 1908, 4, Palmer College
of Chiropractic Archives, quoted in Martin 1993, 813; Palmer 1950b, 2; Palmer,
The Lord’s Work, 9; Palmer 1966, 116; Palmer 1961, 56, 71–72; Palmer 1950a,
537–538 (emphasis in original).
8. See note 5 above.
9. Moore 1993, 49–50.
10. Chapman-Smith 2000, 14.
11. Moore 1983, 151; Bryner 1987, 53–57.
12. American Chiropractic Association, “Policy Statement” (1994), Association
of Chiropractic Colleges, “Position Paper” (1996), quoted in Chapman-Smith
2000, 57–60; World Chiropractic Alliance, “Practice Guidelines for Straight
Chiropractic” (1993), quoted in Raso 1994, 150.
13. Raso 1994, 148; NACM 2008 (emphasis in original); Dynamic Chiropractic 2010.
14. Donahue 1992, 23; Donahue 1986, 35; Rondberg 1989, 1, 3–4, 10 (emphasis in
original).
15. McDonald 2003, 15–16, 20–21, 35, 49, 55, 60, 89–91, 101.
16. Moore 1993, 148; Gay 2007; Harper 2007, 19 (emphasis in original); Eriksen,
Rochester, and Grostic 2007, 279; Hammer 2007, 427; Maurer 1998, 18; Kline
2012, 3.
17. Reid 2007, 28 (emphasis in original).
18. Abblett and Abblett 2007, 55; Amos 2006, 27; Passalacqua 2006, 21.
19. Chapman-Smith 2000, 69–70, 135; Keene 1999.
20. Keating et al. 2005; evangelical patient, e-mail to author, June 30, 2009.
21. Bube 1977, 23.
22. Moore 1993, 189–190, pieces together several studies. Biographical sketches
of Oklahoma chiropractors from 1930 give the religious affiliations of 50
out of 112 practitioners: 11 Baptists, 11 Methodists, 8 Christian/Church of
Christ, 8 Presbyterians, 4 Methodist Episcopals, 2 Catholics, 2 Quakers, 1
Lutheran, 1 Nazarene, 2 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and 2
attending Phillips Christian University “preparatory for Evangelistic work.”
Many of the same individuals “belonged to the Masons, Shriners, and other
fraternal bodies.” A study of 58 Missouri chiropractors in 1972 found 40
Protestants (70.7 percent), 10 Catholics (17.2 percent), 2 “other” (3.4 percent),
and 5 with no religious affiliation (8.7 percent). Who’s Who in Chiropractic
(1980) includes 875 entries: 310 with no religious affiliation (35.4 percent),
103 Catholics (11.8 percent), 421 Protestants (48.1 percent), 23 Jews (2.6 per-
cent), and 18 “other” (2.1 percent), including 1 “Unitarian Atheist.” Gallagher
1930, 107–176; Lin 1972, 54; Lints-Dzaman, Scheiner, and Schwartz 1980,
23–265; McSherry 1952, 5, 10, 13.
 Notes 239

23. Hultgren 2003, 8; CCA official, interview by author, March 16, 2006; CCA 2013.
24. Hultgren 1999, 2, 5–8.
25. Whorton 2002, 168; Weed 1913, reprinted in Palmer 1951, 158–159; Moore
1993, 100; Lyon 1977, 31; Boyajian 2006.
26. Gordon 1992; Ankerberg and Weldon 1991, 206.
27. Reisser, Reisser, and Weldon 1987, 3–4, 37, 94; Moore 1993, 204.
28. Anderson and Jacobson 2003, 149, 152–153; O’Mathúna and Larimore 2006,
151; Let Us Reason Ministries 2009.
29. Hultgren 1999, 5.
30. Herron and Glasser 2003, 280; Wahner-Roedler et al. 2005, 55.
31. Brown 2012, 78–95; Albanese 2007, 510.
32. On survey methods, see Brown 2012, 162–193, 293–298.
33. Cherkin and MacCornack 1989, 351.
34. Kaptchuk and Eisenberg 1998, 2221–2222; Moore 1993, 141.

c h a p t er 5

1. Hufford 1988, 256; FDA 2006.

2. Sackett et al. 1996, 71; Willis and White 2004, 57.
3. Cahill et al. 2003, 35; Spiro 1997, 49; Khalsa 2004; Cochrane Collaboration 2013;
Ramaratnam and Sridharan 2002.
4. Ruggie 2004, 170.
5. Center for Mindfulness 2013a; TM.org 2012a; Ospina et al. 2007, v.
6. Phillips 2004; Cantwell, quoted in Rand 2013a; AHNA 2009; Vitale 2007, 178;
Garrison 2005; Holos University 2010; New Thought Accreditation Commission
2007; Center for Reiki Research 2013a; Baldwin, Wagers, and Schwartz 2008;
Baldwin and Schwartz 2006; NIH 2013.
7. Ojasoo and Doré 1999, 81; Singh and Ernst 2008, 73; WHO 2002, 3–7, 23–25.
8. Nienhuys 2010; Hopff 1991.
9. Davenas et al. 1988; Maddox, Randi, Stewart 1988; Singh and Ernst 2008,
118–126.
10. Vickers 1999; Becker-Witt et al. 2003, 113; Pearson 2002.
11. Benveniste 2000 is quoted on numerous Web sites as of 2013, but the DigiBio
Web site could no longer be located on August 30, 2011; Jonas et al. 2006, 23;
Singh and Ernst 2008, 124–125.
12. Linde et al. 1997; Linde et al. 1999; Ernst 2002b, 577; Jonas, Kaptchuck, and
Linde 2003, 393; Shang et al. 2005; Cochrane Collaboration 2013; NCCAM
2010b, 1–3.
13. Singh and Das 2011.
14. Pharmaca 2011; Logan 2010; Kastner and Burroughs 1993, 122.
15. Cahill et al. 2003, 104; Winterson 2007; Winterson 2008; Dupreem and Beal
2006, 73.
240 Notes

16. Andersen-Parrado 1999; Ryman 1991, 3–5; Holt et al. 2003; Smith, Collins, and
Crowther 2011; Price and Price 2007, 11–12; Barrett 2001; Schwartz 2008; Valnet
1990, 7; Aromaweb 2013.
17. Krieger 1975, 786; Mooney 2005, 38; Rosa, Rosa, Sarner, and Barrett 1998;
Meehan 1999, 176; Woods, Craven, and Whitney 2005; Winstead-Fry and Kijek
1999.
18. Quinn and Strelkauskas 1993; NCCAM 2007, 3; Wirth 1990; Wirth et al. 1993.
19. Sayre-Adams and Wright 2001, 24; Quinn 1989.
20. NCCAM 2009, 2–3.
21. NCI 2013c; NCCAM 2012c, 2.
22. NCCAM 2010c, 1–3.
23. NCCAM 2009, 2; Cahill et al. 2003, 118, 145–146; Plait 2002, 21–27.
24. NCCAM 2010c, 1–3; Wang et al. 2004.
25. Sood 2010, 95; Draganski et al. 2006; Boelens et al. 2009; Colcombe 2006; Wan
and Schlaug 2010; Gómez-Pinilla 2008.
26. Garfinkel et al. 1998; Irwin, Olmstead, and Oxman 2007; Yeh 2004, 542, 546.
27. Wang, Lau, and Collet 2004; Yeh 2008, 84; Han 2004; Gillespie et al. 2009.
28. Sood 2010, 114; NCCAM 2010d, 2; Wayne et al. 2004, 142–143, 150.
29. WHO 2000, 3; Stone 2011, viii; Assembly of Life Sciences 1982; Campbell and
Campbell 2006, 157–182; Physicians Committee 2013; Fulkerson 2011.
30. American Dietetic Association 2009, 1266; ACS 2012a, 48–49; ACS 2008; ACS
2012b.
31. Jepson and Craig 2008; Linde, Berner, and Kriston 2008; von Schacky and Harris
2007; Chen, Stavro, and Thompson 2002; Aggarwal et al. 2005; Serraino 1999;
Dwyer 1992.
32. Furlan et al. 2008; Ernst and Canter 2006, 192; Walker, French, and Green 2010;
Rubinstein et al. 2011; Proctor et al. 2006; O’Connor, Marshall, and Massy-
Westropp 2003; Hondra, Linde, and Jones 2005; Glazener, Evans, and Cheuk
2005.
33. Dworkin 2001, 11.
34. Weiger et al. 2002, 891–892; FDA 2009.
35. Weiger et al. 2002, 895; NCI 2013a; NCI 2013b; ACS 2013; Horneber et al. 2008;
Goldacre 2010, 4–7.
36. FDA 2009; ACS 2011; NCI 2012a; ACS 2012c; NCI, 2012b; Milazzo et al. 2006;
Barrett 2006, 1770; Eisele and Reay 1980, 1608; Ernst 1997, 196.
37. Langworthy and le Fleming 2005; Ernst and Canter 2006, 192; Ernst 2002a, 41;
Stevinson and Ernst 2002, 566; Cagnie 2004, 151; Plamindon 1995, 57; Ernst
1998, 249; de González, Berrington, and Darby 2004.
38. Banuet-Alvers 1996, 3; Giri 1997; Broad 2012, 121; Russell 1972; Corrigan 1969;
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2012.
39. Swatmarama 2010; Narayanananda 1970, 84–90; Grof 2013; Lukoff 1988.
 Notes 241

40. Perez-De-Albeniz and Holmes 2000; Institute for Youth and Society 1980, 4.6.6;
Philadelphia Inquirer (January 14, 1987), quoted in Behind-the-tm-façade.org
2013; DeNaro, “Affidavit” (July 16, 1986), in Kropinski v. World Plan. In Kropinski
(1988), the District of Columbia Court of Appeal was unconvinced that scien-
tific opinion supported the brainwashing theory of the plaintiff’s expert witness,
Margaret Singer.
41. American Psychiatric Association 1996; Kornfield 1993, 131–132.
42. Cahill et al. 2003, 34, 104.
43. Carter 2004, 7 (emphasis in original).
44. Avise and Ayala 2009, xvi; Green and Green 1965.
45. Jentoft 2006c, 3; Stein 2007, 25, 77; Charlish and Robertshaw 2001, 77, 144, 152.
46. Wuthnow 1997, 227; Krieger 1993, 3–4.
47. Nisbett and Wilson 1977, 250.
48. Rachlin and Laibson 1997, 252–254.

c h a p t er 6

1. Carter 2010a; Carter 2004, 308–309.

2. Carter 2004, 312; Jeremiah and Carlson 1995, 121.
3. Carter 2004, 170–176; Kendall 2002, 2; Carter 2010b.
4. Kuriyama 1999, 102, 236, 284 n. 102; Veith 1962, 478–479; Porkert 1974, 123;
Kaptchuk 2002, 376; Singh and Ernst 2008, 52.
5. Ceniceros and Brown 1998, 1121; White and Ernst 2004, 662; Yamada and Sentā
1998, 56; Ramey and Rollin 2003, 24.
6. Harper 1997, 93–94; Keegan 1988; Akahori 1989, 19; NJLS 8, Origin of the Spirit,
quoted in Kendall 2002, 116.
7. Ramey and Rollin 2003, 24–25; Kaptchuk 2002, 374; Weintraub, Ravinder, and
Micozzi 2008, 216; Kendall 2002, 17; Cook 2004, 109–134; de la Vallée 1993, 37.
8. Croizier 1968, 15; Ramey and Rollin 2003, 26.
9. Huard and Wong 1968, 150; Li 1994, 84; White and Ernst 2004, 663.
10. Kendall 2002, 76.
11. Lytle 1993, 13.
12. Ricci 1953, 16, 32; Cronin 1955, 96–97; Dharmananda 2004.
13. Veith 1975, 393; Reston 1971, 6.
14. Harrington 2008, 208; NCCAM 2010a, 1; Mayo Clinic 2012; Kendall 2002, xi;
Gilligan 2010, 37.
15. Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Alliance 2013; Kong et al. 2007, 1059–1060;
“Connie,” interview, October 30, 2009, in Vasko 2009, 11.
16. Helms 1987; Helms 1995, xv–xx; Bauer et al. 2010, 16.
17. L’Orange 1998, 331; Ergil 2009, 158; Beal 2000, 75; Kendall 2002, xii–xiii, 2, 7, 13;
Berman and Larson 1992, xvi; Reed 1992, 76.
242 Notes

18. Bauer et al. 2010, 121; White, Cummings, and Filshie 2008, 2, 9–11; Matthews
2002, 37.
19. NCCAM 2010a, 1; Mayo Clinic 2012.
20. Kaptchuk 2002, 379; White House Commission 2002, 19; van Tulder et al. 1999;
Melchart et al. 1999; NIH 1997, 1.
21. White and Ernst 2004; NCCAM 2010a, 1–3.
22. Cochrane Collaboration 2013; Linde et al. 2009b; Linde et al. 2009a; Trinh et al.
2006; Pennick and Young 2007; Zhu, Hamilton, and McNicol 2011; Smith et al.
2011b; Smith et al. 2011a.
23. Cochrane Collaboration 2013.
24. Ezzo et al. 2006; Cheong, Ng, and Ledger 2008; Huang et al. 2011; Yip et al.
2009; Coyle, Smith, and Peat 2012; Lee and Fan 2009.
25. Sood et al. 2005.
26. Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche 2010; Spiro 1997, 49.
27. WHO 2002, 3–4.
28. Bullock, Culliton, and Olander 1989; Lee 2008; Manheimer et al. 2005.
29. Smith, Crowther, and Belby 2002; Miller et al. 2004, 603; Mayo Clinic 2012;
Bartleson 2011.
30. WHO 2002, 5; Bauer et al. 2010, 17; Mayo Clinic 2012; Eisenberg and Wright
1995, 118–119.

c h a p t er 7

1. Scarry 1985, 6; Orsi 2005, 21–32; Coakley 2007, 90; Pernick 1985, 7–8, 13–14, 56;
Leavitt 1986, 117.
2. Curtis 2007, 2, 15; Glucklich 2001, 62.
3. Chidester 2005, 26; Goldstein 1995, 220.
4. Marchand 2013; Greene and Greene 2001, 51, 111–116.
5. Hannon 2013; Aicher-Swartz 2013.
6. Chuster, quoted in Maxwell 1996, 98; Wyman 2013a; Wyman 2013b; Williamson
2010, 5; Lefebure 1996, 964.
7. Merton 1948, 203–205; Lefebure 1996, 964–968; Kadowaki 1977, 11, 36;
Kadowaki 2008; Kennedy 1995, 26–27, 37, 59, 108–109; Main 1990, 79.
8. Griffith 2004, 2; Roof 1993, 244.
9. Haller 2005, 235–236; Opp 2005, 25, 31; Brown 2012, 105–111; Ward 2006, 11;
Williams 2013, 158.
10. Efmoody.com 2008; Murphy, Xu, and Kochanek 2012, 1; ACS 2012a, 1; Davis
2007, 20; Bailer and Smith 1986, 1226.
11. Frähm 2000, 7–11, 19, 250–254; Frähm 2013.
12. Paul W., April 1, 2009, and IAurR1987, April 8, 2009, in Beliefnet.com 2009b;
Kats5dogs, March 12, 2009, in Beliefnet.com 2009a.
13. Dworkin 2001, 6; Alan’s friend, e-mail to author, March 7, 2008; Burkett 2003,
117, 149–150; Fackerell 2009.
 Notes 243

14. Wilson 2006, 87–88.

15. Rawdon 2011.
16. Wilson 2006, 94, 105; Rawdon, quoted in Pinto 2007; Deuteronomy 20:19; Weil
1995, 160.
17. Wilson 2006, 96, 109.
18. Edwards Lake Church of Christ 2013.
19. Stanton, letter to Lucretia Mott, 1852, quoted in Kirschmann 2004, 7, 29; Coulter
1973, 116; PR Newswire 2003.
20. Dankmyer, Zlotnik, and Weise, interviews, in Toufexis, Cole, and Hallanan
1995, 47; Ullman 2007, 208–209, 271, 295, 305–306.
21. Lake and Spiegel 2007, xv; Naisbitt 1982, 48.
22. Interviews, in Cant and Sharma 1999, 40–41; interviews, in Greene and Greene
2001, 115, 118.
23. Cancer Nutrition Centers of America 2013; Evenbetternow.com 2013; Kordich 2012.
24. Saxion 2003; Saxion 2013; Truehealth.com 2011.
25. Schmid 2007; Walters 1993, 81.
26. Healthdowsing.com 2013; Skillen 1997; Gillett 2011; Needle 2010; Hidden-
cancer-cures.com 2004.
27. Walters 1993, 93; Ryan 1997; Davis 2007, xvii; Epstein 2011, 170.
28. King 1999, 12; Denniston and McWilliams 1975, 19, 39, 45, 223; TM.org 2012c.
29. Albanese 2007, 5–6; Luhrmann 1989, 270; Moore 2002.
30. AcupunctureToday.com 2013; Kaptchuk 2002, 380; American Association
of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine 2012, 1; Biofeedback Certification
International Alliance 2013; American Massage Therapy Association 2011;
Deutsch and Anderson 2008, 134.
31. Sellers 2003, “Business.”
32. DavidLynchFoundation.org 2012; Malnak v. Yogi 1979.
33. AME 2009.
34. Associated Press 2007; Tara Guber, quoted in Havlen 2002; Frazier 2002; Yogaed.
com 2011.
35. HinduismToday.com 2004.
36. “Brad,” interview, March 27, 2009, in Dolezal 2009, 14; Banuet-Alvers 1996,
38–46, 77.
37. Ananth 2011, 3; Lemberg 2009; Cancer Treatment Centers 2012.
38. Ananth 2011, 9; Fink, quoted in Frontline 2003.
39. Sood 2010, 106–107; AYA 2013; Barnes, Bloom, and Nahin 2008, 6; “Rachel,”
interview by author, October 10, 2006; Koontz 2003, 139.
40. Keenan 1990, 422; Harrison 2005; Harrington 2008, 223.
41. Fetto 2003.
42. Culpepper 1994, 259, 263; Gauthier 2009, 74; White and Rollitt 2009, 249;
Schneiderman 2010.
43. Goldstein 1999, 212; White House Commission 2002, 69.
244 Notes

c h a p t er 8

1. Backos 2013.
2. Vincen-Brown 2010.
3. Stein 2007, 7; Jentoft 2006a; Miles 2006, 11; Hambrick 1974.
4. Rand 2013b; Jentoft 2006e, 4; Stein 2007, 59; Yamasaki 1988, 23.
5. Hall 2010; Cook 2004, 152; Herron 2005.
6. Jentoft 2006a; Lübeck, Petter, and Rand 2001, 28, 303–304; Stein 2007, 72;
Epperly and Epperly 2005, 20–21.
7. Miles 2006, 5; Jentoft 2006c, 15–17, 31; Charlish and Robertshaw 2001, 102.
8. Jentoft 2006f; Jentoft 2006b; Valerie 2010; Stein 2007, 58.
9. Jentoft 2006c, 20; Charlish and Robertshaw 2001, 210–211.
10. Charlish and Robertshaw 2001, 84; Stein 2007, 3, 29.
11. Stein 2007, 112, 142; English-Lueck 1990, 18–20; Goldstein 1999, 143–145,
228–229.
12. Jentoft 2006c, 3; Charlish and Robertshaw 2001, 72–73.
13. Stein 2007, 18–20, 60–66; Jentoft 2006e, 10–16; Vincen-Brown 2010.
14. Streich 2007, 16; Newman 1994, 34; Jentoft 2006d; Stein 1995, 57–58.
15. Jentoft 2006e, 6–9; Yamaguchi 2007, 69; Stein 2007, 129.
16. Jentoft 2006e, 6–9; Stein 2007, 107, 142.
17. Stein 2007, 133–134, 141.
18. Ibid., 133, 141.
19. Ibid., 96–97, 134.
20. Charlish and Robertshaw 2001, 85; Stein 2007, 19, 64, 105.
21. Charlish and Robertshaw 2001, 17; Jentoft 2006c, 6; Stein 2007, 9, 17, 113.
22. International Association of Reiki Professionals 2012; Lipinski 2004; Jentoft
2006c, 3–5; Nemri 2004, 37; Vincen-Brown 2010; Fuchs 2006, 34.
23. Stein 2007, 2, 9–10, 24; Jentoft 2006a; Jeftoft 2006e, 25; Charlish and Robertshaw
2001, 44, 62.
24. Krieger 1975, 784; Krieger 1979, 11–13; Stein 2007, 15; Fuller 2001, 112;
Albanese 2007, 508–509.
25. Krieger 1981, 50; Krieger 1993, 112–113.
26. Frohock 2000, 93; Krieger 1987, 33; Krieger 1979, 11–13, 80; Krieger 1981, 143;
Krieger 1993, 75; Kunz and Peper 1995, 213–214; Kunz 1999, 167.
27. Krieger 1981, 138.
28. Cahill et al. 2003, 294.
29. Meehan 1999, 181–184; Krieger 1997, 21–22, 37, 129.
30. Center for Reiki Research 2013b; Barnes, Bloom, and Nahin 2008, 10.
31. Wolf and Wing 2013.
32. Alandydy, quoted in Rand 2013a; Keene 2013; Miles 2006, 193; Van de Velde
2009a, 35; Van de Velde 2009b, 50.
33. Stein 2007, 4, 17; “Mary,” interview by author, April 22, 2010; Foucault 1978, 94.
 Notes 245

34. Mooney 2005, 48–49, 304; A. Miller, quoted in Maxwell 1996, 98; Satel 2000, 79;
Colt and McNally 1996, 35–36.
35. Mooney 2005, 174; Cahill et al. 2003, 295.
36. Mooney 2005, 80–84, 89, 174; Quinn 1992; Keenan, Treder, and Clingerman
2001, 19; Carpenito 1995, 344, 355; Therapeutic-Touch.org 2005; Cahill et al.
2003, 295.
37. HealingTouchProgram.com 2013b; HealingTouchProgram.com 2008, 36.
38. HealingTouchProgram.com 2013a; Mentgen and Bulbrook 1994, 3–4, 81; Keck
1999, quoted in Salladay 2002, 32; HealingTouchProgram.com 2008, 25.

c onc lusion

1. Faden and Beauchamp 1986, 93–95, 145 n. 37; Miller and Wertheimer 2010, ix;
World Medical Association 1981, 2; British Medical Association 1993, 67; Ernst,
Cohen, and Stone 2004, 158; Schneider 2007, 10.
2. Faden and Beauchamp 1986, 8, 14; Beauchamp 2010, 66.
3. Faden and Beauchamp 1986, 30–34 (emphasis in original); Pew Forum 2008.
4. Schloendorff 1914, 92; Joffe and Truog 2010, 348; Miller 2010, 375; Bankert and
Cooper 2012, 5; Tuskegee Syphilis Study Legacy Committee 1996; Reverby 2011, 6.
5. Faden and Beauchamp 1986, 28, 123–143; Ramsey 1970, 2; Jonsen 1998, 50–51.
6. Beauchamp and Childress 2009, 187; Benson 1989, 647; Malette 1990.
7. Muramoto 1998, 223–230.
8. Faden and Beauchamp 1986, 329; Miller 2010, 381; O’Neill 2003, 5; O’Neill
2007, 82; Beauchamp 2010, 70.
9. Watson 1998, 6; Winterson 2007; McCoy 2004.
10. Cahill et al. 2003, 50–51, 442.
11. Achterberg et al. 1992, 16; Chodzko-Zajko et al. 2005, 5.
12. “Dr. Smith,” interview, October 30, 2009, in Vasko 2009, 8–9.
13. POCA 2013; Jordan 2009a; Jordan 2009b; Acuguy 2009.
14. Zang Fool 2009.
15. Donahue 1992, 23; Burgess 1990, 24; Steinecke 1996, 44.
16. Zaidman, Goldstein-Gidoni, and Nehemya 2009, 605–606, 610, 614–616; Kabat-
Zinn 1990, 436.
17. AHNA 2009; Cohen 2006, 114–135; Salladay 2002, 28.
18. Appelbaum, Roth, and Lidz 1982, 323–324.
19. Cahill et al. 2003, 44–45, 298; “Anne,” quoted in Mooney 2005, 1.
20. Stein 2007, 17; Mebane 2013; Epperly and Epperly 2005, 118–120; “John,” inter-
view, in Klassen 2005, 382; Kleinig 2010, 5.
21. Bullough and Bullough 1998, 254–257; “Betty” and “Bob,” e-mail to author,
April 15, 2006.
22. Carter 2010b; “Dr. Smith,” “Jim,” interviews, October 30, 2009, in Vasko
2009, 16.
246 Notes

23. McGuire and Kantor 1988, 29; Lubove, “Dual Evolution” (1909), 74, quoted in
Fuller 2001, 119; “Nancy,” interview by author, November 3, 2005.
24. Brown 2012, 285; Lee and Poloma 2009, 7–10.
25. Raposa 2003, 13–14, 34; Ueshiba 1992, 25–26; McFarlane 1991, 361; Charlish
and Robertshaw 2001, 64; Stein 2007, 61.
26. Marchand 2013; Aicher-Swartz 2013 (emphasis in original); Lyles 2013; Quinn
1991, 62.
27. Powers 2000; Birch, quoted in Isaacs 2003; Cadge and Bender 2004, 48; “Marcy,”
interview, in Bender 2010, 42.
28. Catalfo 2001; Cushman 2000, 68–75.
29. Parachin 2007, 165; Henrichsen-Schrembs and Versteeg 2011; “Sharon,” inter-
view, September 30, 2009, in Lennox 2009, 12.
30. Arumugaswami, interview, in Owens 2006; Shukla 2010; “Julia,” “Kristin,”
interviews, March 5, 2010, in Metroka 2010, appendix.
31. Pastor, interview by author, September 26, 2007.
32. Conkle 2009, 69–71; FTC 1983; FTC 1980.
33. Eisenberg 1997, 62; Ruggie 2004, 186.
34. Field notes by author, January 6, 2010.
35. Glucklich 2001, 179.
36. Schneider 1998, 31.
37. Miller and Wertheimer 2010, ix; Kleinig 2010, 16; Nobelprize.org 2001; Wuthnow
2007, 38; Wuthnow 1998, 59; Wuthnow 1976, 206.
38. Matthew 22:37–39; Cherry 2003, 27; Gotquestions.org 2013a.
39. Berg 2004, 196; Knechtle 2003; Sullivan 2009, 18, 181; Sullivan 2005, 150–152.
40. Eck 2001, 320; Torcaso 1961, 495; Gordon 2010, 210, 273 n. 95.
41. Gordon 2010, 149–150, 165; Tribe 1978: 826–829, 1988: 1186; Malnak 1979, 212–
213. Compare Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village (1994), which invalidated
creating a separate school district for Hasidic Jews; Conkle 2009, 143–144.
42. Conkle 2009, 54, 157–159; Greenawalt 2005, 64; Gordon 2010, 60–68; Everson
1947, 15–16; Engel 1962, 431–432, 438, 443; School District of Abington 1963, 219.
43. Levi 1948, 1–2; Greenawalt 2005, 20; Conkle 2009, 39–42, 120–126; Alley 1999,
82–96; Kritzer and Richards 2003, 827–840; Lemon 1971, 612–613.
44. Lynch 1984, 688; Greenawalt 2005, 47; Conkle 2009, 126, 169.
45. Lee 1992, 593; Conkle 2009, 131.
46. HinduismToday.com 2004; Conkle 2009, 56.
47. Everson 1947, 15–16; Conkle 2009, 195–209; Minow 2002, 84; Gordon 2010, 210–
211; Sullivan 2009, 219–221. Hein (2007) rejected taxpayer standing to challenge
executive-branch expenditures but did not challenge direct-indirect, religious-
secular distinctions.
 Notes 247

48. Singh and Ernst 2008, 116; Gibbons 1977, 725; Johnston 2004, 4; Goldstein
1999, 112–113; Ruggie 2000, 138; Chopra 1992; PR Newswire 1999.
49. Maxwell 1996, 96; Koontz 2003, 140; NCCAM 2013; AcupunctureToday.com
2008; McConkey 2010.
50. Conkle 2009, 208; Koenig 1997, 7; Brown 2012, 194–233.
51. Abdul Shukor Husin, quoted in Associated Press 2008; “Indonesian Clerics”
2009; Lynch 1984, 689; Conkle 2009, 128.
52. Said 1978, 5; King 1999, 2; Smith 2005, 123; Vitello 2010.
53. Johnston 2004, 4; Goldstein 1999, 10–11; Frohock 1992, vii.
This page intentionally left blank
 Bibliography

AARP and NCCAM. 2007. Complementary and Alternative Medicine: What People
50 and Older Are Using and Discussing with Their Physicians. Washington, D.C.:
AARP.
Abblett, David E., and Terry Ann Abblett. 2007. Chiropractic Cash Practice Survival
Guide: How to Successfully Start-up or Convert Your Practice. Sudberry, Mass.: Jones
and Bartlett.
Abhyasi. 2010. “Vrks āsana” (January 31). Accessed February 25, 2013. allpractice.
˙ ˙
blogspot.com/search/label/tree%20pose.
Abzug, Robert H. 1994. Cosmos Crumbling: American Reform and the Religious
Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Achterberg, Jeanne, et al. 1992. “Mind-Body Interventions,” 3–43. In Berman and
Larson 1992.
ACS. 2008. “Macrobiotic Diet” (November 1). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.cancer.
org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/
DietandNutrition/macrobiotic-diet.
———. 2011. “Essiac Tea” (October 14). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.cancer.org/
Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/
HerbsVitaminsandMinerals/essiac-tea.
———. 2012a. Cancer Facts & Figures 2012. Atlanta: ACS.
———. 2012b. “Gerson Therapy” (December 11). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.cancer.
org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/
DietandNutrition/gerson-therapy?sitearea=ETO.
———. 2012c. “Laetrile” (December 11). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.cancer.org/
Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/
PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/laetrile.
———. 2013. “Mistletoe” (January 16). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.cancer.org/
Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/
HerbsVitaminsandMinerals/mistletoe.
Acuguy. 2009. “Is Acupuncture ‘Taoist?’” (May 13). Accessed February 27, 2013. www.
communityacupuncturenetwork.org/blog/acupuncture-has-image-problem.
250 Bibliography

Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Alliance. 2013. “Frequently Asked Questions.”

Accessed February 25. www.acuall.org/faq.htm.
AcupunctureToday.com. 2008. “Acupuncture Offered to Addicts as Alternative to
Jail” (April). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/
at/article.php?id=31696.
———. 2013. “Acupuncture Schools.” Accessed February 25. acupuncturetoday.
com/schools.
Advaita Yoga Ashrama. 2013. “Hatha Yoga: The Cobra—Bhujangasana.” Accessed
February 25. yoga108.org/pages/show/101-bhujangasana-the-cobra-yoga-posture.
Aggarwal, B. B., et al. 2005. “Curcumin Suppresses the Paclitaxel-induced Nuclear
Factor-kappaB Pathway in Breast Cancer Cells and Inhibits Lung Metastasis of
Human Breast Cancer in Nude Mice.” Clinical Cancer Research 11: 7490–7498.
Agostini v. Felton. 1997. 521 U.S. 203.
Ahlstrom, Sydney E. 2004. A Religious History of the American People, 2nd ed. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
AHNA. 2009. Response to the Catholic Bishops Guidelines for Reiki. Flagstaff, Ariz.:
AHNA.
Aicher-Swartz, Marita. 2013. “Reiki and the Teachings and Values of Jesus.” Accessed
Februrary 25. www.christianreiki.org/info/Articles/TeachingsAndValues.htm.
Akahori, A. 1989. “The Interpretation of Classical Chinese Medical Texts in
Contemporary Japan: Achievements, Approaches, and Problems,” 19–27. In
Approaches to Traditional Chinese Medical Literature, ed. Paul Ulrich Unschuld.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Albanese, Catherine L. 1990. Nature Religion in America: From the Algonkian Indians
to the New Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2007. A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American
Metaphysical Religion. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
———. 2013. America: Religions and Religion, 5th ed. Boston: Wadsworth.
Alley, Robert S. 1999. The Constitution and Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on
Church and State. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus.
Alter, Alexandra. 2003. “Yoga Stretches Traditional Christian Boundaries.” Religion
News Service (July 14). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.hinduismtoday.com/
blogs-news/hindu-press-international/yoga-stretches-traditional-christian-
boundaries/3136.html.
Alter, Joseph S. 2004. Yoga in Modern India: The Body between Science and Philosophy.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Alves, Marta. 2003. “Yoga: Not a Catholic Meditation Technique.” Accessed February
25, 2013. www.faithleap.org/yoga.pdf.
Amazon.com. 2013. Customer Reviews of Christoga. Accessed February 25. www.
amazon.com/Christoga-Faith-Fitness-Janine-Turner/dp/B000R9SK1U.
AME. 2009. “What Is Mindfulness?” Accessed February 25, 2013. www.mindfuledu-
cation.org/whatismindfulness.html.
 Bibliography 251

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2012. “Yoga Injury Prevention”

(March). Accessed February 25, 2013. orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00063.
American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. 2012. Annual Survey:
Preliminary Report (May 4). Accessed February 25, 2013. c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.
aaaomonline.org/resource/resmgr/docs/aaaom_annual_survey_2012_pre.pdf.
American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. 2012. “Licensed States &
Licensing Authorities.” Accessed February 25, 2013. www.naturopathic.org/
content.asp?contentid=57.
American Dietetic Association. 2009. “Vegetarian Diets.” Journal of the American
Dietetic Association 109.7: 1266–1282.
American Massage Therapy Association. 2011. “2011 Massage Therapy Industry
Fact Sheet” (February 17). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.amtamassage.org/
articles/2/PressRelease/detail/2320.
American Psychiatric Association. 1996. “Appendix I: Culture Bound Syndromes,
DSM-IV: Religious or Spiritual Problem,” V62.89. In Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: APA.
Amos, Mark A. 2006. “What Do Symptoms Mean to the Chiropractor?” Journal of
Chiropractic Humanities 13.13: 27–29.
Ananth, Sita. 2011. Complementary and Alternative Medicine Survey of Hospitals.
Alexandria, Va.: Samueli Institute.
Andersen-Parrado, Patricia. 1999. “Neroli: The Benefits Are Blossoming All Over.”
Better Nutrition (March): 38.
Anderson, Neil T., and Michael D. Jacobson. 2003. The Biblical Guide to Alternative
Medicine. Ventura, Calif.: Regal.
Ankerberg, John, and John Weldon. 1991. Can You Trust Your Doctor? The Complete
Guide to New Age Medicine and Its Threat to Your Family. Brentwood, Tenn.:
Wolgemuth and Hyatt.
———. 1996. Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House.
Appelbaum, Paul S., Loren H. Roth, and Charles W. Lidz. 1982. “The Therapeutic
Misconception: Informed Consent in Psychiatric Research.” International Journal
of Law and Psychiatry 5.3–4: 319–329.
Aranya, Swami Hariharananda, ed. 1963. Yoga Philosophy of Patañjali. Trans. P. N.
Mukerji. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.
Ariel, Yaakov. 1999. “Counterculture and Mission: Jews for Jesus and the Vietnam Era
Missionary Campaigns, 1970–1975.” Religion and American Culture 9 (Summer):
233–257.
Aromaweb. 2013. “History of Aromatherapy.” Accessed February 25. www.aro-
maweb.com/articles/history.asp.
Arriaza, Rafael. 2009. “Karate,” 287–298. In Kordi et al. 2009.
Asay, Paul. 2007a. “How Would Jesus Fight?” Plugged In (September 10). Accessed
February 25, 2013. www.pluggedin.com/upfront/2007/HowWouldJesusFight.
aspx.
252 Bibliography

———. 2007b. “You and the UFC,” Plugged In (October 1). Accessed February 25,
2013. www.pluggedin.com/upfront/2007/youandtheufc.aspx.
Assemblies of God USA. 2013. “Astrology, Psychics & Transcendental Meditation.”
Accessed February 25. www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/charctr_18_astrology.cfm.
Assembly of Life Sciences. 1982. Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy.
Associated Press. 2007. “Yoga Causes Controversy in Public Schools” (January
28). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16859368/ns/
health-kids_and_parenting.
———. 2008. “Islamic Leaders in Malaysia Ban Yoga for Muslims” (November 21).
Accessed February 25, 2013. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,456367,00.html.
Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges. 2013. “The 6 Principles.”
Accessed February 25. www.aanmc.org/naturopathic-medicine/the-6-principles.
php.
Avise, John C., and Francisco J. Ayala, eds. 2009. In the Light of Evolution III: Two
Centuries of Darwin. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
AYA. 2013. “General Yoga Information.” Accessed February 25. www.american-
yogaassociation.org/general.html#TypesofYoga.
Babamani, Sri Sri. 2013. “Om in the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and Yoga Sutras.”
Accessed February 25. babamani.page.tl/Om-in-the-Upanishads,-Bhagavad-
Gita,-and-Yoga-Sutras.htm.
Backos, Marcia. 2013. “Should Christians Practice Reiki?” Accessed February 25.
www.christianreiki.org.
Bailer, John C. III, and Elaine M. Smith. 1986. “Progress against Cancer?” New
England Journal of Medicine 314.19 (May 8): 1226–1232.
Baldwin, Anne Linda, and Gary E. Schwartz. 2006. “Personal Interaction with a
Reiki Practitioner Decreases Noise-induced Microvascular Damage in an Animal
Model.” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 12.1: 15–22.
Baldwin, Anne Linda, Christina Wagers, and Gary E. Schwartz. 2008. “Reiki
Improves Heart Rate Homeostasis in Laboratory Rats.” Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine 14.4: 417–422.
Bankert, Elizabeth, and Jeffrey A. Cooper. 2013. “History and Ethical Principles.”
Accessed February 25. www.ctspedia.org/wiki/pub/ResearchEthics/HumanSub
jectProtectionSocialBehavioralSciencesModule2b/HSPsocbeh_Module_2b_
Pittsburgh-50_pages.pdf.
Banuet-Alvers, Yvonne L. 1996. Yoga the College Way: A Textbook for College Yoga.
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Barna Group. 2008. “Is American Christianity Turning Charismatic?” (January 7).
AccessedFebruary25,2013.www.barna.org/barna-update/ article/18-congregations/52-
is-american-christianity-turning-charismatic.
Barnes, Linda L. 2005. Needles, Herbs, Gods, and Ghosts: China, Healing, and the West
to 1848. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
 Bibliography 253

Barnes, Linda L., and Susan Sered, eds. 2005. Religion and Healing in America. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Barnes, Patricia M., Barbara Bloom, and Richard L. Nahin. 2008. “Complementary
and Alternative Medicine Use among Adults and Children: United States, 2007.”
National Health Statistics Reports 12. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health
Statistics.
Barr, Stephen M. 2003. Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Notre Dame, Ind.:
University of Notre Dame Press.
Barrett, Stephen. 2001. “Aromatherapy: Making Dollars Out of Scents” (August 22).
Accessed February 25, 2013. www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/
aroma.html.
———. 2006. “Alternative Nutrition Therapies,” 1762–1775. In Modern Nutrition in
Health and Disease, 10th ed., ed. Maurice E. Shils et al. Philadelphia: Lippincott
Williams and Wilkins.
———. 2010. “Questionable Cancer Therapies.” Quackwatch (July 27). Accessed
February 25, 2013. www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cancer.html.
Bartleson, J. D. 2011. “Can Acupuncture Treatments Relieve Back Pain?” Accessed
May 16. www.mayoclinic.com/health/acupuncture-for-back-pain/AN02055.
Bauer, Brent A., et al. 2010. Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine. New York: Time
Inc. Home Entertainment.
Bausell, R. Barker, Wen-Lin Lee, and Brian M. Berman. 2001. “Demographic and
Health-Related Correlates of Visits to Complementary and Alternative Medical
Providers.” Medical Care 39.2: 190–196.
Beal, Margaret. 2000. “Acupuncture and Oriental Body Work: Traditional and
Biomedical Concepts in Holistic Care.” Holistic Nursing Practices 14.3: 69–78.
Beals, Brandon. 2011. “Fight Church” (March 4). Accessed February 25, 2013. fight-
pastor.com/fight-church.ra.
———. 2013. “About.” Accessed February 25, 2013. fightpastor.com/about.
Beardsley, Edward. 1924. “Why the Public Consult the Pseudo Medical Cults.”
Journal of the Medical Society of New Jersey 21: 275–281.
Beauchamp, Tom L. 2010. “Autonomy and Consent,” 55–78. In Miller and
Wertheimer 2010.
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2009. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th
ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bebbington, David. 1989. Evangelicalism in Britain: A History from the 1730s to the
1980s. London: Unwin Hyman.
Becker-Witt, Claudia, et al. 2003. “Quality Assessment of Physical Research
in Homeopathy.” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 9.1:
113–132.
Behind-the-tm-façade.org. 2013. “Research Demonstrating Harmful Effects from
TM.” Accessed February 25. www.behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_
meditation-harmful-abstracts.htm.
254 Bibliography

Beliefnet.com. 2009a. “New, Frightened.” Accessed February 25, 2013. community.

beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43881/13804991/New,_frightened?pg=3.
———. 2009b. “Not Sure What to Make of This.” Accessed February 25, 2013. community.
beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43881/14136209/not_sure_what_to_make_of_this.
Bender, Courtney. 2010. The New Metaphysicals: Spirituality and the American Religious
Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benson, K. T. 1989. “The Jehovah’s Witness Patient: Considerations for the
Anesthesiologist.” Anesthesia & Analgesia 69: 647–656.
Benveniste, Jacques. 2000. “From ‘Water Memory’ Effects to ‘Digital
Biology’ . . . Overview of DigiBio.” Paper presented for the Society for Scientific
Exploration, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 21.
Benz, Ernst. 1989. The Theology of Electricity: On the Encounter and Explanation of
Theology and Science in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick.
———. 2002. Emanuel Swedenborg: Visionary Savant in the Age of Reason. Trans.
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. West Chester, Pa.: Swedenborg Foundation.
Bercovitch, Sacvan. 1978. The American Jeremiad. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Berg, Thomas C. 2004. The State and Religion in a Nutshell, 2nd ed. St. Paul, Minn.:
Thomson.
Berman, Brian M., and David B. Larson, eds. 1992. Alternative Medicine: Expanding
Medical Horizons. Washington, D.C.: GPO.
Berry, Rynn. 2007. “Veganism,” 604–605. In The Oxford Companion to American Food
and Drink, ed. Andrew F. Smith. New York: Oxford University Press.
Berry, Thomas. 1992. Religions of India: Hinduism, Yoga, Buddhism, 2nd ed. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Bharati, Swami Jnaneshvara. 2013. “Yoga and Christianity: Loving with All Your
Parts.” Accessed February 25. www.swamij.com/yoga-christianity.htm.
Biblical Discernment Ministries. 1992. “Karate—Tool for Christian Evangelism
or Zen Buddhism?” (April). Accessed February 25, 2013. http://www.rapidnet.
com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/karate.htm.
Bikram Yoga. 2013. “Admission Fees.” Accessed February 25. www.bikramyoga.
com/TeacherTraining/Admissionfees.php.
Biofeedback Certification International Alliance. 2013. “Overview of Biofeedback.”
Accessed February 25. www.bcia.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3524.
Bishop, Felicity L., Lucy Yardley, and George T. Lewith. 2008. “Treat or Treatment:
A Qualitative Study Analyzing Patients’ Use of Complementary and Alternative
Medicine.” American Journal of Public Health 98.9: 1700–1705.
Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna. 1888. The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science,
Religion, and Philosophy. Vol. 2. London: Theosophical Publishing Co.
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet. 1994. 512 U.S. 687,
702–707.
Bob Jones University. 1992. “About the Cover.” BJU Review (Spring): 2.
 Bibliography 255

———. 2013. “Mission and Institutional Goals.” Accessed February 25. www.bju.
edu/about-bju/mission-goals.php.
Boelens, Peter A., et al. 2009. “A Randomized Trial of the Effect of Prayer on
Depression and Anxiety.” International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine 39.4:
377–392.
Bolte, J. 1976. From Pendulum Research to Miraculous Healing. Germany: Eigenverlag.
Boon, Brooke. 2007. Holy Yoga: Exercise for the Christian Body and Soul. New York:
FaithWords.
———. 2010. “About Holy Yoga.” Accessed February 25, 2013. holyyogafoundation.
com/about.php?q=.
Bordenkircher, Susan. 2006. Yoga for Christians: A Christ-Centered Approach to Physical
and Spiritual Health through Yoga. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson.
———. 2013. “Our Philosophy.” Accessed February 25. www.christianyoga.us/
home.htm.
Boyajian, George. 2006. My Views on Chiropractic. Covington, Ky.: James N. King,
[1950s?]. Accessed March 16. christianchiropractors.org/boyaj.htm.
Brandon, George. 1991. “The Uses of Plants in Healing in an Afro-Cuban Religion,
Santeria.” Journal of Black Studies 22.1: 55–76.
Braude, Ann. 2001. Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in Nineteenth-
Century America, 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Breuss, Rudolf. 1995. Cancer Cure: Advice for the Prevention and Natural Treatment
of Cancer, Leukemia and Other Seemingly Incurable Diseases. Burnaby, B.C.: Alive.
British Homoeopathic Association. 1994. “Homoeopathy in the Service of the
Gospel.” Homoeopathy: The Journal of the British Homeopathic Association 44.2: 44.
British Medical Association. 1993. Medical Ethics Today: Its Practice and Philosophy.
London: BMA.
Broad, William J. 2012. The Science of Yoga: The Risks and Rewards. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Brown, Barbara. 1980. Supermind: The Ultimate Energy. New York: Harper and Row.
Brown, Candy Gunther. 2004. The Word in the World: Evangelical Writing, Publishing,
and Reading in America, 1789–1880. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
———. 2012. Testing Prayer: Science and Healing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Brown, David. 2009. “Scientists Speak Out against Federal Funds for Research on
Alternative Medicine.” Washington Post (March 17). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602139.
html.
Brown, Deena. 1979. “A Conversation with Lilias Folan.” Yoga Journal (July/August):
7–15.
Bryner, Peter. 1987. “Isn’t It Time to Abandon Anachronistic Terminology?” Journal
of the Australian Chiropractors’ Association 17.2: 53–58.
256 Bibliography

Bube, Richard H. 1977. “Pseudo-Science and Pseudo-Theology: (A) Cult and Occult.”
Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (March): 22–28.
Budwig, Johanna. 2010. The Budwig Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease Prevention
Diet. Los Angeles: Freedom.
Bullock, M. L., P. D. Culliton, and R. T. Olander. 1989. “Controlled Trial of
Acupuncture for Severe Recidivist Alcoholism.” Lancet 333.8652: 1435–1439.
Bullough, Vern L., and Bonnie Bullough. 1998. “Should Nurses Practice Therapeutic
Touch? Should Nursing Schools Teach Therapeutic Touch?” Journal of Professional
Nursing 14.4: 254–257.
Burch, Kate Netzler. 2010. “Jesus Freaks, Sacred Ink, Holy Yoga, and Other Tales
from the Margins of Pop Culture: A Theory of Evangelical Identity Construction.”
Unpublished paper, May 5.
Burgess, Michael M. 1990. “La Chiropratique et le Consentement Éclairé.” Journal of
the Canadian Chiropractic Association 34.1: 20–26.
Burkett, Larry. 2003. Nothing to Fear: The Key to Cancer Survival. Chicago: Moody.
Butler, Jon. 1990. Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Cadge, Wendy, and Courtney Bender. 2004. “Yoga and Rebirth in America: Asian
Religions Are Here to Stay.” Contexts 3.1: 45–51.
Cagnie, Barbara. 2004. “How Common Are Side Effects of Spinal Manipulation and
Can These Side Effects Be Predicted?” Manual Therapy 9.3: 151–156.
Cahill, Matthew, et al. 2003. Nurse’s Handbook of Alternative & Complementary
Therapies. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Campbell, Ron G. 1999. Free from Freemasonry. Ventura, Calif.: Ventura.
Campbell, T. Colin, and Thomas M. Campbell. 2006. The China Study: Startling
Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Dallas: BenBella.
Cancer Nutrition Centers of America. 2013. “CNCA Essential Pack.” Accessed
February 25. www.cncahealth.com/supplements/immune-support.
Cancer Treatment Centers of America. 2012. “Naturopathic Medicine.” Accessed
February 25, 2013. www.cancercenter.com/complementary-alternative-medi-
cine/naturopathic-medicine.cfm.
Cant, Sarah, and Ursula Sharma. 1999. A New Medical Pluralism? Alternative
Medicine, Doctors, Patients, and the State. London: UCL.
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
Carpenito, L. J. 1995. Nursing Diagnosis: Application to Clinical Practice, 6th ed.
Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Carroll, Robert T. 2010. “Kirlian Photography.” The Skeptic’s Dictionary (December 9).
Accessed February 25, 2013. www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html.
Carter, Brian Benjamin. 2004. Powerful Body, Peaceful Mind: How to Heal Yourself with
Foods, Herbs, and Acupressure. San Diego, Calif.: PulseMed.org.
———. 2010a. “Brian B. Carter, MS, Lac.” Accessed June 13. christianacupuncture.
com.
 Bibliography 257

———. 2010b. “Talking to and Sharing the Gospel with Your Non-Christian
Acupuncturist.” Accessed June 13. christianacupuncture.com/how-to-deal-with-
non-christian-acupuncturist.htm.
Catalfo, Phil. 2001. “Is Yoga a Religion?” Yoga Journal (March/April). Accessed
February 25, 2013. www.yogajournal.com/lifestyle/283.
Cayleff, Susan E. 1987. Wash and Be Healed: The Water-Cure Movement and Women’s
Health. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
CCA. 2013. “Home.” Accessed February 25. www.christianchiropractors.org/.
CDC. 1981. “Campylobacter Sepsis Associated with ‘Nutritional Therapy’—
California.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 30.24: 294–295.
Ceniceros, Salvador, and George R. Brown. 1998. “Acupuncture: A Review of
Its History, Theories, and Indications.” Southern Medical Journal 91.12:
1121–1125.
Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Health Care, and Society. 2013a. “Bibliographies.”
Accessed February 25. www.umassmed.edu/Content.aspx?id=41286.
———. 2013b. “UMass Center for Mindfulness—Other MBSR Programs
Worldwide.” Accessed February 25. w3.umassmed.edu/MBSR/public/search-
member.aspx.
Center for Reiki Research Including Reiki in Hospitals. 2013a. “Conclusion.”
Accessed February 25. www.centerforreikiresearch.org/RRConclusion.aspx.
———. 2013b. “Home.” Accessed February 25. www.centerforreikiresearch.org.
Chadwick, Reverend Jonathan. 2008. “Letters from Religious Leaders and
Persons of Faith on the Transcendental Meditation Program” (November 4).
Accessed February 25, 2013. www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/
IsTMaReligion/ReligiousLeaders/index.cfm#Chadwick.
Chapman-Smith, David. 2000. The Chiropractic Profession: Its Education, Practice,
Research and Future Directions. West Des Moines, Iowa: NCMIC Group.
Charlish, Anne, and Angela Robertshaw. 2001. Secrets of Reiki. New York: DK.
Chen, Jianmin, P. Mark Stavro, and Lilian Thompson. 2001. “Dietary Flaxseed
Inhibits Human Breast Cancer Growth and Metastasis and Downregulates
Expression of Insulin-like Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor.”
Nutrition and Cancer 43.2: 187–192.
Chen, Michael. 2002. Christianity & Martial Arts Power: Basic Concepts and Methods.
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Dorrance.
Cheong, Y. C., E. Hung Yu Ng, and W. L. Ledger. 2008. “Acupuncture and Assisted
Conception.” CDSR: 4.CD006920.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006920.pub2.
Cherkin, Daniel C., and Frederick A. MacCornack. 1989. “Patient Evaluations of Low
Back Pain Care from Family Physicians and Chiropractors.” Western Journal of
Medicine l50.3: 351–355.
Cherry, Reginald B. 2003. Bible Health Secrets. Lake Mary, Fla.: Siloam.
Chidester, David. 2005. Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
258 Bibliography

Chodzko-Zajko, Wojtek, et al. 2005. National Expert Meeting on Qi Gong and Tai Chi
Consensus Report. Urbana: University of Illinois.
Chopra, Deepak. 1992. Escaping the Prison of the Mind: A Journey from Here to Here
(audio recording). San Rafael, Calif.: New World Library.
ChristianReiki.org. 2013. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed February 25.
www.christianreiki.org/info/FAQ.htm.
Cline, Jessica. 2012. “Tae Kwon Do Opens Hearts to the Gospel.” Accessed February
25, 2013. www.ccci.org/ministries-and-locations/americas/guatemala/tae-kwon-
do-opens-hearts-to-the-gospel.htm.
Cloud, David. 2009. “Beware of Homeopathy” (December 1). Accessed February 25,
2013. http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/category-new-age-movement.html.
CMAN. 2012a. “FAQ.” Accessed September 27. www.christianmartialarts.agapy.
com/questions.php.
———. 2012b. “Home.” Accessed September 27. www.christianmartialarts.agapy.
com/home.php.
Coakley, Sarah. 2007. “Palliative or Intensification? Pain and Christian Contemplation
in the Spirituality of the Sixteenth-Century Carmelites,” 77–100. In Pain and Its
Transformations: The Interface of Biology and Culture, ed. Sarah Coakley and Kay
Kaufman Shelemay. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Cochrane Collaboration. 2013. “The Cochrane Library.” Accessed February 25, 2013.
www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/index.html.
Cohen, Michael H. 2006. Healing at the Borderland of Medicine and Religion. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Colcombe, Stanley J., et al. 2006. “Aerobic Exercise Training Increases Brain Volume
in Aging Humans.” Journals of Gerontology 61.11: 1166–1170.
Colt, George Howe, and Joe McNally. 1996. “See Me, Feel Me, Touch Me, Heal Me.”
Life (September): 34–50.
Conkle, Daniel O. 2009. Constitutional Law: The Religion Clauses, 2nd ed. New York:
Thomson.
Connolly, Greg. 2010. “Naturopathic Case Taking,” 2–5. In Clinical Naturopathy:
An Evidence-based Guide to Practice, ed. Jerome Sarris and Jon Wardle. Sydney:
Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.
Cook, Michelle Schoffro. 2004. Healing Injuries the Natural Way: How to Mend Bones,
Muscles, Tendons and More. Victoria, B.C.: Sarahealth/Trafford.
Corrigan, G. E. 1969. “Fatal Air Embolism after Yoga Breathing Exercises.” 210.10
JAMA: 1923.
Coulter, Harris L. 1973. Divided Legacy: The Conflict between Homeopathy and the
American Medical Association. Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books.
Covington, Daryl R. 2006. Purpose Driven Martial Arts. Blountsville, Ala.: Fifth Estate.
Covington, Daryl, and Joseph Lumpkin. 2004. The Warrior’s Heart Revealed: Christian
Warriors Discuss Martial Arts, Ministry, & Philosophy. Blountsville, Ala.: Lumpkin
and Covington.
 Bibliography 259

Coward, Harold G. 2008. The Perfectibility of Human Nature in Eastern and Western
Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Cox, Harvey. 1999. “Pentecostalism and Global Market Culture: A Response to Issues
Facing Pentecostalism in a Postmodern World,” 386–395. In The Globalization
of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, ed. Murray W. Dempster, Byron D.
Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Irvine, Calif.: Regnum.
Coyle, M. E., C. A. Smith, and B. Peat. 2012. “Cephalic Version by Moxibustion for
Breech Presentation.” CDSR: 5.CD003928.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003928.
pub3.
Croizier, Ralph C. 1968. Traditional Medicine in Modern China. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1968.
Crompton, Samuel Etinde. 2005. Emanuel Swedenborg. Philadelphia: Chelsea House.
Cronin, Vincent. 1955. The Wise Man from the West: Matteo Ricci and His Mission to
China. New York: Dutton.
Culpepper, Emily E. 1994. “Martial Art Meditations,” 258–264. In The Politics of
Women’s Spirituality: Essays by Founding Mothers of the Movement, ed. Charlene
Spretnak. New York: Anchor.
Curtis, Heather. 2007. Faith in the Great Physician: Suffering and Divine Healing
in American Culture, 1860–1900. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Cushman, Anne. 2000. “The New Yoga.” Yoga Journal (January/February): 68–75,
166–171.
Dager, Albert. 1989. “Acupuncture: Magic or Medical Science?” Media Spotlight:
A Biblical Analysis of Religious and Secular Media: 1–2.
Dale, John. 1989. Interview. Personality Magazine (December 6): 22.
Davenas, Elisabeth, et al. 1988. “Human Basophil Degranulation Triggered by Very
Dilute Antiserum against IgE.” Nature 333.6176: 816–818.
DavidLynchFoundation.org. 2012. “Schools.” Accessed February 25, 2013. www.dav-
idlynchfoundation.org/schools.html.
Davis, Devra. 2007. The Secret History of the War on Cancer. New York: Basic.
De Castro, Erwin, B. J. Oropeza, and Ron Rhodes. 1994. “Enter the Dragon? Wrestling
with the Martial Arts Phenomenon. Part Two: A Christian Assessment.” Christian
Research Journal 16 (Winter): 1–8.
De González, A. Berrington, and S. Darby. 2004. “Risk of Cancer from Diagnostic
X-rays: Estimates for the UK and 14 Other Countries,” Lancet 363.9406: 345–351.
De la Vallée, Elisabeth Rochat. 1993. “Huangdi Neijing.” Journal of Traditional
Acupuncture 15: 37–45.
Delbanco, Andrew. 1995. The Death of Satan: How Americans Have Lost the Sense of
Evil. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Deloitte Development. 2010. “The Hidden Costs of U.S. Health Care for Consumers:
A Comprehensive Analysis.” Accessed February 25, 2013. www.deloitte.com/
view/en_US/us/Industries/health-care-providers/center-for-health-solutions/
260 Bibliography

health-care-consumerism/efcc19ce7f3ce210VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.
htm.
De Michelis, Elizabeth. 2004. A History of Modern Yoga: Patañjali and Western
Esotericism. New York: Continuum.
Denniston, Denise, and Peter McWilliams. 1975. The TM Book: Transcendental
Meditation; How to Enjoy the Rest of Your Life. Allen Park, Mich.: Three Rivers.
Dent v. West Virginia. 1889. 129 U.S. 114.
Descartes, René. 1649. The Passions of the Soul (Les passions de l’âme), 218–238.
In Selected Philosophical Writings, trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and
Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Desmond, Deborah. 2011. “Body Therapies.” Accessed February 5. www.namastew-
illiamsburg.com/index2.html.
Deutsch, Judith E., and Ellen Sambo Anderson. 2008. Complementary Therapies for
Physical Therapy: A Clinical Decision-Making Approach. St. Louis: Saunders.
Devi, Indra. 1953. Forever Young, Forever Healthy: Simplified Yoga for Modern Living.
New York: Prentice-Hall.
———. 1959. Yoga for Americans: A Complete 6 Weeks’ Course for Home Practice. New
York: Prentice-Hall.
Dharmananda, Subhuti. 2004. “Chinese Medicine in Italy: Integrated into the
Modern Medical System” (September). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.itmon-
line.org/arts/italy.htm.
“Discerning the Healing Spirits.” 1998. Christianity Today (July 13). Accessed
February 25, 2013. www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/july13/8t8029.html.
DiscernIt. 2007. “New Age Chiropractic” (October 7). Accessed February 25, 2013.
kimolsen.wordpress.com/2007/10/07/new-age-chiropratic.
Dolezal, Allison. 2009. “Yoga and American Culture.” Unpublished paper. April 20.
Donahue, John J. 1993. “The Ritual Dimension of KARATE-DO.” Journal of Ritual
Studies 7.1: 105–124.
Donahue, Joseph H. 1986. “D. D. Palmer and Innate Intelligence: Development,
Division and Derision.” Chiropractic History 6: 31–36.
———. 1987. “D. D. Palmer and the Metaphysical Movement in the Nineteenth
Century.” Chiropractic History 7.1: 23–27.
———. 1992. “The Trouble with Innate and the Trouble That Causes.” Philosophical
Constructs for the Chiropractic Profession 2.1: 21–25.
Don-Wauchope, Sallee. 1993. In Support of Homoeopathy in the Light of the Bible.
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: National Government Publication.
Draeger, Don F. 1996. Modern Bujutsu & Budo: The Martial Arts and Ways of Japan.
Boston: Shambhala.
Draganski, Bogdan, et al. 2006. “Temporal and Spatial Dynamics of Brain Structure
Changes during Extensive Learning.” Journal of Neuroscience 26.23: 6314–6317.
Dupreem, Glen, and Susan Beal. 2006. “A Graphic Representation of the Workings
of Homeopathy.” American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine 99.1: 73–77.
 Bibliography 261

Durkheim, Émile. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Simon & Schuster,
rpt. 1984.
Dworkin, Ronald W. 2001. “Science, Faith, and Alternative Medicine.” Policy Review
(August/September): 3–18.
Dwyer, J. T. 1992. “Unproven Nutritional Remedies and Cancer.” Nutrition Reviews
50: 106–109.
Dynamic Chiropractic. 2010. “No More NACM.” Dynamic Chiropractic 28.8 (April 9).
Accessed February 26, 2013. http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/
article.php?id=54548.
Eck, Diana. 2001. A New Religious America: How a “Christian Country” Has Now Become
the World’s Most Religiously Diverse Nation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Economist.com. 2012. “The Believers.” Economist (April 14). Accessed February 25,
2013. www.economist.com/node/21552554.
Edelson, P. J. 1994. “Adopting Osler’s Principles: Medical Textbooks in American
Medical Schools, 1891–1906.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 68: 67–84.
Edwards Lake Church of Christ. 2013. “Meet Our Shepherds.” Accessed February 25,
2013. edwardslakechurch.org/about/meet-our-shepherds.
Edwards v. Aguillard. 1987. 482 U.S. 578.
Efmoody.com. 2008. “Life Expectancy Tables.” Accessed February 25, 2013. http://
www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html.
Eisele, J. W., and D. T. Reay. 1980. “Deaths Related to Coffee Enemas.” JAMA 244.14:
1608–1609.
Eisenberg, David M. 1997. “Advising Patients Who Seek Alternative Medical
Therapies.” Annals of Internal Medicine 127.1: 61–69.
Eisenberg, David M., and Thomas Lee Wright. 1995. Encounters with Qi: Exploring
Chinese Medicine. New York: Norton.
Eisenberg, David M., et al. 1993. “Unconventional Medicine in the United States:
Prevalence, Costs, and Patterns of Use.” New England Journal of Medicine 328.4:
246–252.
———. 1998. “Trends in Alternative Medicine Use in the United States, 1990–1997:
Results of a Follow-Up National Survey.” JAMA 280.18: 1569–1575.
Employment Division v. Smith. 1990. 494 U.S. 872.
Engel v. Vitale. 1962. 370 U.S. 421.
English-Lueck, J. A. 1990. Health in the New Age: A Study of California Holistic
Practices. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Epperly, Bruce G., and Katherine Gould Epperly. 2005. Reiki Healing Touch and the
Way of Jesus. Kelowna, B.C.: Wood Lake Books.
Epstein, Samuel S. 2011. National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society:
Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest. Bloomington,
Ind.: Xlibris.
Ergil, Marnae C. 2009. “Acupuncture,” 158-205. In Pocket Atlas of Chinese Medicine,
ed. Marnae C. Ergil and Kevin V. Ergil. New York: Thieme.
262 Bibliography

Eriksen, Krik, Roderic P. Rochester, and John F. Grostic. 2007. Orthospinology

Procedures: An Evidence-Based Approach to Spinal Care. Philadelphia: Wolters
Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Ernst, Edzard. 1997. “Colonic Irrigation and the Theory of Autointoxication:
A Triumph of Ignorance over Science.” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 24.4:
196–198.
———. 1998. “Chiropractors’ Use of X-rays.” British Journal of Radiology 71: 249–251.
———. 2002a. “Spinal Manipulation: Its Safety Is Uncertain.” Canadian Medical
Association Journal 166.1: 40–41.
———. 2002b. “A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy.” British
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 54: 577–582.
Ernst, Edzard, and P. Canter. 2006. “A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of
Spinal Manipulation.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (April): 189–193.
Ernst, Edzard, M. H. Cohen, and J. Stone. 2004. “Ethical Problems Arising in
Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.” Journal of Medical
Ethics 30: 156–159.
Essiacinfo.org. 2007. “Who Was Rene Caisse?” Accessed February 25, 2013. www.
essiacinfo.org/caisse.html.
Evenbetternow.com. 2013. “NewGreens Organic SuperFood Blend.” Accessed
February 25, 2013. www.evenbetternow.com/proddetail.asp?prod=NewGreens.
Everson v. Board of Education. 1947. 330 U.S. 1.
Ezzo, J., et al. 2006. “Acupuncture-point Stimulation for Chemotherapy-induced Nausea
or Vomiting.” CDSR: 2.CD002285.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD002285.pub2.
Fackerell, Michael. 2009. “A Natural Cure for Cancer” (January 29). Accessed February
25, 2013. www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/a-natural-cure-for-cancer.
Faden, Ruth R., and Tom L. Beauchamp, with Nancy M. P. King. 1986. A History and
Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press.
Farnsworth, Norman R., et al. 1985. “Medicinal Plants in Therapy.” Bulletin of the
World Health Organization 63: 965–981.
FDA. 2006. “Guidance for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration” (December).
Accessed February 25, 2013. www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98FR/06D-0480-
GLD0001.PDF.
———. 2009. “187 Fake Cancer ‘Cures’ Consumers Should Avoid” (July 9). Accessed
February 25, 2013. www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/
EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/ucm171057.htm.
Fea, John. 2011. Was America Founded As a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction.
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press.
Federal Acupuncture Coverage Act. 2011. H.R. 1328; reintroduction of H.R. 646 (2009).
Fernflores, Francisco. 2010. “The Equivalence of Mass and Energy” (June 23). In The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Accessed Februrary 25,
2013. plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/equivME.
 Bibliography 263

Fessenden, Tracy. 2007. Culture and Redemption: Religion, the Secular, and American
Literature. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
Fetto, John. 2003. “Your Questions Answered” (May 1). Accessed February 25, 2013.
adage.com/article/american-demographics/questions-answered/44147.
Field, Tiffany. 2009. Complementary and Alternative Therapies Research. Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Finch, Mary Ann. 1999. Care through Touch: Massage as the Art of Anointing. New
York: Continuum.
Fischer-Rizzi, Susanne. 1990. Complete Aromatherapy Handbook: Essential Oils for
Radiant Health. New York: Sterling.
Fish, Sharon. 1995. “Therapeutic Touch: Healing Science or Psychic Midwife?”
Christian Research Journal 18 (Summer): 28–38.
Folk, Holly. 2006. “Vertebral Vitalism: American Metaphysics and the Birth of
Chiropractic.” Ph.D. diss., Indiana University.
Forstater, Mark and Jo Manuel. 2002. The Spiritual Teachings of Yoga: Ancient
Philosophy for Modern Wisdom. London: Hodder and Stroughton.
Foucault, Michel. 1975. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archeology of Medical Perception,
trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Vintage.
———. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. New York:
Pantheon.
Frähm, Dave. 2000. Cancer Battle Plan Sourcebook: A Step-by-Step Health Program to
Give Your Body a Fighting Chance. New York: Putnam.
———. 2013. “HealthQuarters Ministries.” Accessed February 25. www.healthquar-
ters.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=16.
Frazier, Deborah. 2002. “Religion or Exercise? Debate on Yoga Raises Concerns.”
Scripps Howard News Service (September 6). Accessed Februrary 25, 2013. www.
beliefnet.com/Faiths/2002/09/Religion-Or-Exercise-Debate-On-Yoga-Raises-
Concerns.aspx.
Frohock, Fred M. 1992. Healing Powers: Alternative Medicine, Spiritual Communities,
and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2000. Lives of the Psychics: The Shared Worlds of Science and Mysticism.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Frontline. 2003. “The Alternative Fix” (November 6). Accessed February 25, 2013.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/altmed/etc/synopsis.html.
FTC. 1980. FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness. Washington, D.C.: FTC.
———. 1983. FTC Policy Statement on Deception. Washington, D.C.: FTC.
Fuchs, Michael. 2006. “Reiki Is Not Religion.” Massage Magazine (April/May): 34–35.
Fulkerson, Lee. 2011. Forks over Knives (video recording). New York: Virgil Films.
Fuller, Robert C. 1989. Alternative Medicine and American Religious Life. New York:
Oxford University Press.
264 Bibliography

———. 2001. Spiritual, but Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America. New
York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2008. Spirituality in the Flesh: Bodily Sources of Religious Experiences. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Funakoshi, Gichin. 1973. Karate-dō Kyōhan: The Master Text. New York: Kodansha.
Furlan, Andrea D., et al. 2008. “Massage for Low-Back Pain.” CDSR: 4.CD001929.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001929.pub2.
Galanos, Mike. 2007. “No Yoga for Christians?” CNN Prime News with Erica
Hill (September 11). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.youtube.com/v/
FiY6OpLG9VQ.
Gallagher, Harry. 1930. History of Chiropractic: A History of the Philosophy, Art and
Science of Chiropractic and Chiropractors in Oklahoma. Guthrie, Okla.: William
E. Welch and William H. Pattie.
Garfinkel, Marian S., et al. 1998. “Yoga-Based Intervention for Carpal Tunnel
Syndrome.” JAMA 280.18: 1601–1603.
Garrison, Nancy L. 2005. “The Effects of Reiki on Free Radicals.” Th.D. diss., Holos
University.
Gauthier, Janel. 2009. “Ethical and Social Issues in Combat Sports: Should Combat
Sports Be Banned?” 73–88. In Kordi et al. 2009.
Gay, Timothy J. 2007. “Why Are You Where You Are?” Chiropractic Journal:
A Publication of the World Chiropractic Alliance (June). Accessed February 25,
2013. http://www.thechiropracticjournal.com/news12.php.
Germantown Baptist Church. 2013. “Recreation Class Schedule.” Accessed February
25. www.germantownbaptist.org/classes/view/22/?recreation=1.
Gerson, Charlotte, and Morton Walker. 2001. The Gerson Therapy: The Amazing
Nutritional Program for Cancer and Other Degenerative Diseases. New York:
Kensington.
Gevitz, Norman. 1988a. “Osteopathic Medicine: From Deviance to Difference,” 124–
156. In Gevitz 1988b.
———, ed. 1988b. Other Healers: Unorthodox Medicine in America. Baltimore, Md.:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gibbons, Russell W. 1977. “Chiropractic in America: The Historical Conflicts of
Cultism & Science.” Journal of Popular Culture 10.4: 720–731.
Gielow, Vern. 1981. Old Dad Chiro: Biography of D. D. Palmer, Founder of Chiropractic.
Davenport, Iowa: Bawden.
Gillespie, Lesley D., et al. 2009. “Interventions for Preventing Falls in Older People
Living in the Community.” CDSR: 2.CD007146.DOI:10.1002/14651858.
CD007146.pub2.
Gillett, Kerry Louise. 2011. “Dowsers Find Answers to Breast Cancer in Marin
County.” (October 6). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.dowsersofthewest.org/
articles/brcan.shtml.
Gilligan, Peter A. 2010. What Is “Tai Chi”? Philadelphia: Singing Dragon.
 Bibliography 265

Giri, Swami Gitananda. 1997. “Real Yoga Is As Safe As Mother’s Milk.” Yoga Life
28.12: 3–12.
Gladstar, Rosemary. 1999. Herbal Remedies for Children’s Health. Pownal, Vt.: Storey.
Glazener, C. M. A., J. H. C. Evans, and D. K. L. Cheuk. 2005. “Complementary
and Miscellaneous Interventions for Nocturnal Enuresis in Children.” CDSR:
2.CD005230.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD005230.
Glucklich, Ariel. 2001. Sacred Pain: Hurting the Body for the Sake of the Soul. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Godin, Jerome. 2013. “The True Origins of Entelev, Cancell and Cantron.” Accessed
February 25. www.cantron.com/html/OriginsofCancell.html.
Goldacre, Ben. 2010. Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks. New York:
Faber and Faber.
Goldstein, Michael S. 1999. Alternative Health Care: Medicine, Miracle, or Mirage?
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Gómez-Pinilla, Fernando. 2008. “Brain Foods: The Effect of Nutrients on Brain
Function.” Neuroscience 9.7: 568–578.
Gordon, Ruth. 1992. “Chiropractic Medicine—Science or Science Fiction?” Watchman
Expositor 9.7. Accessed February 25, 2013. www.watchman.org/na/chiro1.htm.
Gordon, Sarah Barringer. 2010. The Spirit of the Law: Religious Voices and the
Constitution in Modern America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Gotquestions.org. 2013a. “Should a Christian Consider Alternative Medicine?”
Accessed February 25. www.gotquestions.org/alternative-medicine.html.
———. 2013b. “Should a Christian Participate in Acupuncture/Acupressure?”
Accessed February 25. www.gotquestions.org/acupuncture-Christian.html.
———. 2013c. “What Is the Christian View of Pilates?” Accessed February 25. www.
gotquestions.org/Christian-pilates.html
———. 2013d. “What Is the Christian View of Tai Chi (TaiChi)?” Accessed February
25. www.gotquestions.org/Tai-Chi-Christian.html.
———. 2013e. “What Is the Christian View of Yoga?” Accessed February 25. www.
gotquestions.org/Christian-yoga.html.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1997. “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.” Natural History 106 (March):
16–22.
Graham, Rochelle, Flora Litt, and Wayne Irwin. 1998. Healing from the Heart: A Guide
to Christian Healing for Individuals and Groups. Peterborough, Ont.: Wood Lake.
Graham, Sylvester. 1837. A Treatise on Bread, and Bread-Making. Boston: Light and
Stearns.
Green, Elmer. 1999. “Alpha-Theta Brainwave Training: Instrumental Vipassana?”
Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine 10: 221–230.
———. 2001. The Ozawkie Book of the Dead. Los Angeles, Calif.: Philosophical
Research Society.
Green, Elmer, and Alyce Green. 1975. “Mind Training, ESP, Hypnosis, and Voluntary
Control of Internal States.” Special Report of the Academy of Parapsychology and
266 Bibliography

Medicine. Sunrise Magazine (April). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.theoso-

ciety.org/pasadena/sunrise/24-74-5/ot-green.htm.
———. 1977. Beyond Biofeedback. New York: Delacorte.
Green, Thomas A. 2001. Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia. 2 vols. Santa
Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
Greenawalt, Kent. 2005. Does God Belong in Public Schools? Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Greene, Rev. Dr. Daryl C., and Anne Rose Greene. 2001. You Can Feel Better: How
to Cope with and Overcome Chronic Pain and Physical Disabilities from a Holistic
Christian Perspective. Richmond, Ind.: Densmore-Reid.
Griffith, R. Marie. 2004. Born Again Bodies: Flesh and Spirit in American Christianity.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grise, Diane. 2009. “The Value of Spirituality in Naturopathic Cancer Treatment.”
Unpublished paper, April 1.
Grof, Stanislov. 2013. “A Brief History of SEN.” Accessed February 25. www.spiritu-
alemergence.info.
Hahnemann, Samuel. 1810. The Homoeopathic Medical Doctrine: Or, “Organon of the
Healing Art,” 5th ed. Trans. Charles H. Devrient, with notes by Samuel Stratten.
Dublin: Wakeman, rpt. 1833.
———. 1846. The Chronic Diseases: Their Specific Nature and Their Homeopathic
Treatment. Trans. and ed. J. Hempel. New York: Radde.
Hahnemann, Samuel, and Hans Burch Gram. 1825. The Characteristic of Homöopathia:
from Hahnemann’s “Geist der Homöopathischen Heil-lehre.” New York: Harper.
Haines, Bruce A. 1995. Karate’s History and Traditions. Rutland, Vt.: C. E. Tuttle.
Hall, David D., ed. 1997. Lived Religion in America: Toward a History of Practice.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Hall, Gregg. 2010. “What Is Reiki and How Does It Work?” Accessed February 25,
2013. www.experiencefestival.com/wp/article/what-is-reiki-and-how-does-it-work.
Hallelujah Acres. 2013a. “Barley Max.” Accessed February 25. ecommerce.hacres.
com/BarleyMax-Large-8-5-oz?sc=8&category=393.
———. 2013b. “Juicers.” Accessed February 25. ecommerce.hacres.com/
kitchen-equipment/juicers.
Haller, John S., Jr. 2005. The History of American Homeopathy: The Academic Years,
1820–1935. New York: Haworth.
———. 2009. The History of American Homeopathy: From Rational Medicine to Holistic
Health Care. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Hambrick, Charles H. 1974. “Tradition and Modernity in the New Religious
Movements of Japan.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1.2-3: 217–252.
Hammer, Warren I. 2007. Functional Soft-Tissue Examination and Treatment by
Manual Methods. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett.
Han, Alice, et al. 2004. “Tai Chi for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis.” CDSR:
3.CD004849.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004849.
 Bibliography 267

Hannon, Robin Littlefeather. 2013. “God Guides Christian to Reiki.” Accessed

February 25. www.christianreiki.org/info/Articles/GodGuidesChristiantoReiki.
htm.
Harp, David, and Nina Smiley. 2007. The Three Minute Meditator, 5th ed. San
Francisco: Mind’s Press.
Harper, David. 2007. “The Chiropractic Story.” Natural Health Education Journal
11.3: 19.
Harper, Donald John. 1997. Early Chinese Medical Literature: The Mawangdui Medical
Manuscripts. New York: Kegan Paul International.
Harrington, Anne. 2008. The Cure Within: A History of Mind-Body Medicine. New
York: Norton.
Harrison, Mark. 2005. “Star Wars and the Seraglio” (August 22). Accessed February 25,
2013. mharrison.wordpress.com/2005/08/22/star-wars-and-the-seraglio-1999-2.
Hartley, Irving, and Elda Hartley. 1974. Biofeedback: The Yoga of the West (video
recording). Cos Cob, Conn.: Hartley Film Foundation, 1974.
Havlen, Naomi. 2002. “Yoga in Classroom Brings Out Critics and Supporters.” Aspen
Times (c. 2002). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.yogaed.com/ye_new_site/
pdfs/ASPEN/aspentimes2.pdf.
HealingTouchProgram.com. 2008. Levels 2-5 Instructor Advancement. Accessed
February 25, 2013. www.healingtouchprogram.com/content_assets/instructor/
documents/htp932.pdf.
———. 2013a. “HT and Principles of Hypnosis.” Accessed February 25. www
.healingtouchprogram.com/classes/class-program-information/ht-and-
principles-of-hypnosis.
———. 2013b. “Janet Mentgen and the Healing Touch Story.” Accessed February 25.
www.htwfoundation.org/about-us/janet-mentgen-and-the-healing-touch-story.
Healthdowsing.com. 2013. “Dowsing Services.” Accessed February 25. www.health-
dowsing.com.
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. 1996. Public Law 104–191.
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation. 2007. 127 S. Ct. 2553.
Heisenberg, Werner. 1930. The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Helms, Joseph M. 1987. “Acupuncture for the Management of Primary
Dysmenorrhea.” Obstetrics and Gynecology 69.1: 51–56.
———. 1995. Acupuncture Energetics: A Clinical Approach for Physicians. Berkeley,
Calif.: Medical Acupuncture Publishers.
Henrichsen-Schrembs, Sabine, and Peter Versteeg. 2011. “A Typology of Yoga
Practitioners.” Practical Matters Journal 4 (Spring). Accessed February 25, 2013.
www.practicalmattersjournal.org/issue/4/analyzing-matters/a-typology-of-
yoga-practitioners.
Herron, David. 2005. “History of Reiki.” Accessed February 25, 2013. reiki.7gen.
com/history.htm.
268 Bibliography

Herron, M., and M. Glasser. 2003. “Use of and Attitudes toward Complementary
and Alternative Medicine among Family Practice Patients in Small Rural Illinois
Communities.” Journal of Rural Health 19.3: 279–284.
Hess, David J. 2002. “The Raw and the Organic: Politics of Therapeutic Cancer Diets
in the United States.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 583.1: 76–96.
Hidden-cancer-cures.com. 2004. “Electro Medicine Cancer Cures: Choose from
Devices Discovered by Royal Rife, Bob Beck, Georges Lakhovsky, and Hulda
Clark.” Accessed February 25, 2013. www.hidden-cancer-cures.com/electro-med-
icine-cancer-cures.htm.
HinduismToday.com. 2004. “Tara’s Yoga for Kids.” Hinduism Today (April/May/June).
Accessed February 26, 2013. www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/
item.php?itemid=1328.
Hittleman, Richard. 1969. Guide to Yoga Meditation. New York: Bantam.
Hodapp, Christopher. 2007. Solomon’s Builders: Freemasons, Founding Fathers and the
Secrets of Washington, D.C. Berkeley, Calif.: Ulysses.
Holcombe, Charles. 1990. “Theater of Combat: A Critical Look at the Chinese Martial
Arts.” Historian 52.3: 411–431.
Holos University Graduate Seminary. “Our Mission.” 2010. Accessed February 25,
2013. www.holosuniversity.org/template.php?id=10.
Holt, F. E., et al. 2003. “Aroma Therapy for Dementia.” CDSR: 3.CD003150.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003150.
Hondra, M. A., K. Linde, and A. P. Jones. 2005. “Manual Therapy for Asthma.”
CDSR: 2.CD001002.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001002.pub2.
Hopff, W. H. 1991. Homöopathie kritisch betrachtet [Homeopathy Critically Regarded].
Stuttgart: Thieme.
Horneber, M., et al. 2008. “Mistletoe Therapy in Oncology.” CDSR: 2.CD003297.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003297.pub2.
Howard, Jay R., and John M. Streck. 1996. “The Splintered Art World of Contemporary
Christian Music.” Popular Music 15.1: 37–53.
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, and Peter C. Gøtzsche. 2010. “Placebo Interventions for all
Clinical Conditions.” CDSR: 1.CD003974.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003974.
pub3.
Huang, T., et al. 2011. “Complementary and Miscellaneous Interventions for
Nocturnal Enuresis in Children.” CDSR: 12.CD005230.DOI:10.1002/14651858.
CD005230.pub2.
Huard, Pierre, and Ming Wong. 1968. Chinese Medicine. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicholson.
Hufford, David J. 1988. “Contemporary Folk Medicine,” 228–264. In Gevitz 1988b.
Hufford, David J., and Mary Ann Bucklin. 2006. “The Spirit of Spiritual Healing in the
United States,” 25–42. In Spiritual Transformation and Healing: Anthropological,
 Bibliography 269

Theological, Neuroscientific, and Clinical Perspectives, ed. Joan D. Koss-Chioino and

Philip Hefner. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Huffstutter, P. J. 2009. “Missouri’s Yoga Enthusiasts Go to the Mat over Sales Tax.”
Los Angeles Times (December 18). Accessed February 25, 2013. articles.latimes.
com/2009/dec/18/nation/la-na-yoga-tax18-2009dec18.
Hultgren, Glenn M. 1999. “Alternative Therapies: Making a Difference through
Spiritual Evaluation.” Accessed February 25, 2013. www.christianchiropractors.
org/pdf/Alternative_Healing.pdf.
———. 2003. Against All Odds . . . But God! An Account of the Activities of the First Fifty
Years of the Christian Chiropractors Association. Fort Collins, Colo.: CCA.
Hunt, Dave. 2006. Yoga and the Body of Christ. Bend, Ore.: Berean Call.
Hutchison, Cynthia. 1999. “Body-Mind-Spirit: Healing Touch: An Energetic
Approach.” American Journal of Nursing 99.4: 43–48.
Indiana University Recreational Sports. 2010–2011, “IU Faculty/Staff Membership
Information.”
“Indonesian Clerics Issue Yoga Ban.” 2009. (January 25). Accessed February 25,
2013. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7850079.stm.
Institute for Youth and Society. 1980. The Various Implications Arising from the Practice
of Transcendental Meditation: An Empirical Analysis of Pathogenic Structures as an
Aid in Counseling. Bensheim, Germany: Institut fur Jugend Und Gesellschaft,
Ernst-Ludwig-Strasse.
International Association of Reiki Professionals. 2012. “About Reiki.” Accessed
February 26, 2013. iarp.org/ReikiDefinition.html.
International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine. 2012.
“Alyce and Elmer Green Award.” Accessed August 23. www.issseem.org/green-
award.cfm.
Irwin, Michael R., Richard Olmstead, and Michael N. Oxman. 2007. “Augmenting
Immune Responses to Varicella Zoster Virus in Older Adults: A Randomized,
Controlled Trial of Tai Chi.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 55.5:
511–517.
Isaacs, Norra. 2003. “Pumping Iron, Practicing Yoga,” 88-93, 149–151. Yoga Journal
(July/August).
Isacowitz, Rael. 2006. Pilates. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics.
Jacobsen, Knut A., ed. 2005. Theory and Practice of Yoga: Essays in Honour of Gerald
James Larson. Boston: Brill.
JAMA. 1998. “Alternative Medicine: An Objective Assessment.” JAMA 280.18:
1551–1640.
James, William. 1902. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature.
Cambridge, Mass.: Longmans.
Jaramillo, F. 2007. Review of Nathan and Gatlin, Dark Side of Karate (February 25).
Accessed February 26, 2013. www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Karate-Harris-Gatlin/
270 Bibliography

product-reviews/1410717666/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_recent?ie=UTF8&coliid=&show
Viewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending.
Jarvis, William T. 2001. “Wheatgrass Therapy.” National Council Against Health
Fraud (January 15). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.ncahf.org/articles/s-z/
wheatgrass.html.
Jayne, Chrysalis Yashpal. 2013. “Classical Homeopathy—As Bright as the
Summer Solstice!” Accessed February 26. www.yashpal.com/writings/articles/
homeopathy.
Jentoft, Peggy. 2006a. “A Brief Reiki History.” Accessed February 26, 2013. pjentoft.
com/reikihistory.html.
———. 2006b. “Mixing Modalities, Reiki and Crystal Healing etc.” Accessed
February 26, 2013. pjentoft.com/mix-modalities.html.
———. 2006c. Reiki Level One Manual: Reiki Unleashed; Usui Reiki, Contemporary
and Traditional. Accessed February 26, 2013. pjentoft.com/REIKIONE.pdf.
———. 2006d. “Reiki: Showing the Symbols.” Accessed February 26, 2013. pjentoft.
com/reiki-display-symbols.html.
———. 2006e. Reiki: Universal Healing Energies. Usui Reiki Master and Teacher
Manual. Accessed February 26, 2013. pjentoft.com/REIKIMASTER.pdf.
———. 2006f. “Remote or Distance Healing with Reiki Symbols.” Accessed February
26, 2013. pjentoft.com/Remotehealing3b.html.
Jepson, Ruth G., and Jonathan C. Craig. 2008. “Cranberries for Preventing Urinary
Tract Infections.” CDSR: 1.CD001321.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001321.pub4.
Jeremiah, David, and C. C. Carlson. 1995. Invasion of Other Gods: The Seduction of
New Age Spirituality. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson.
Joffe, Steven, and Robert D. Truog. 2010. “Consent to Medical Care: The Importance
of Fiduciary Context,” 347–373. In Miller and Wertheimer 2010.
Johnston, Robert D., ed. 2004. The Politics of Healing: Histories of Alternative Medicine
in Twentieth-century North America. New York: Routledge.
Jonas, Wayne B., Ted J. Kaptchuck, and Klaus Linde. 2003. “A Critical Overview of
Homeopathy.” Annals of Internal Medicine 138: 393–399.
Jonas, Wayne B., et al. 2006. “Can Specific Biological Signals Be Digitized?” FASEB
Journal 20: 23–28.
Jones, Rhonda. 2013. “Christian Meditation Techniques: How to Meditate on the
Lord.” Accessed February 26. www.thechristianmeditator.com/christianmedita-
tiontechniques.html.
Jonsen, Albert R. 1998. The Birth of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jordan, River. 2009a. “Acupuncture Has an Image Problem” (May 13).
Accessed February 26, 2013. www.pocacoop.com/prick-prod-provoke/post/
acupuncture-has-an-image-problem.
———. 2009b. “Comment” (May 18). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.pocacoop.
com/prick-prod-provoke/post/evangelical-community-acupuncture.
 Bibliography 271

Jou, Tsung-Hwa. 1985. The Tao of Tai-Chi Chuan. Ed. Shoshana Shapiro. Warwick,
N.Y.: Tai Chi Foundation.
Kabat-Zinn, Jon. 1990. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and
Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. New York: Delacorte.
———. 1994. Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday
Life. New York: Hyperion.
Kadowaki, J. K. 1977. Zen and the Bible: A Priest’s Experience. Trans. Joan Rieck.
Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
———. 2008. “International Zen-Ignatian Training Program.” Accessed February
26, 2013. pweb.sophia.ac.jp/jesuit45/Kakichi_Kadowaki.html.
Kaptchuk, Ted J. 2002. “Acupuncture: Theory, Efficacy, and Practice.” Annals of
Internal Medicine 136.5: 374–383.
Kaptchuk, Ted J., and David M. Eisenberg. 1998. “Chiropractic: Origins, Controversies,
and Contributions.” Archives of Internal Medicine 158.20: 2215–2224.
Kastner, Mark, and Hugh Burroughs. 1993. Alternative Healing: The Complete A–Z
Guide to Over 160 Different Alternative Therapies. La Mesa, Calif.: Halcyon.
Kaufman, Martin. 1988. “Homeopathy in America: The Rise and Fall and Persistence
of a Medical Heresy,” 99–123. In Gevitz 1988b.
Keating, Joseph C. 1997. B. J. of Davenport: The Early Years of Chiropractic. Davenport,
Iowa: Association for the History of Chiropractic.
Keating, Joseph C., Jr., et al. 2005. “Subluxation: Dogma or Science?” Chiropractic &
Osteopathy 13 (August 10): 17.
Keck, R. 1999. Spiritual Practices and Holistic Healing. Lincoln, Neb.: Center for
Healing Touch and Wellness.
Keegan, D. J. 1988. “The Huang-Ti Nei-Ching: The Structure of the Compilation,
the Significance of the Structure.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Keenan, G. M., M. Treder, and E. Clingerman. 2001. “Survey Indicates Sharp Increase
in Usage of NANDA, NOC, and NIC.” Michigan Nurse 74.8: 19–21.
Keenan, John P. 1990. “The Mystique of Martial Arts: A Response to Professor
McFarlane.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 17.4: 421–432.
Keene, Brian. 1999. Review of Jacob’s Ladder. Accessed February 26, 2013. www.feoa-
mante.com/Movies/JKL/jacobslad.html.
Keene, Patricia. 2013. “Developing a Reiki Program at Maine Medical Center.”
Accessed February 26. www.centerforreikiresearch.org/Articles_MaineHospital.
aspx.
Kendall, Donald E. 2002. Dao of Chinese Medicine: Understanding an Ancient Healing
Art. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, Robert E. 1995. Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit: The Place of Zen in Christian Life.
New York: Continuum.
Kent, John Tyler. 2002. The Art and Science of Homeopathic Medicine. Mineola, N.Y.:
Dover.
272 Bibliography

Khalsa, S. B. 2004. “Yoga as a Therapeutic Intervention: A Bibliometric Analysis of

Published Research Studies.” Indian Journal of Physiology & Pharmacology 48.3:
269–285.
Khandavalli, Shamsunder. 2008. “Health & Fitness Through Prana Energy”
(September 29). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.articlesbase.com/alternative-
medicine-articles/health-fitness-through-prana-energy-582594.html.
King, L. S. 1984. “The Flexner Report of 1910.” JAMA 251.8: 1079–1086.
King, Richard. 1999. Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and “The
Mystic East.” New York: Routledge.
Kirschmann, Anne Taylor. 2004. A Vital Force: Women in Homeopathy. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Klassen, Pamela E. 2005. “Ritual Appropriation and Appropriate Ritual: Christian
Healing and Adaptations of Asian Religions.” History and Anthropology 16.3:
377–391.
———. 2011. Spirits of Protestantism: Medicine, Healing, and Liberal Christianity.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kleinig, John. 2010. “The Nature of Consent,” 3–24. In Miller and Wertheimer 2010.
Kline, Carol Marleigh. 2012. “Critical Thinking for Chiropractic: Bridging the Gap.”
Journal of the American Chiropractic Association 49.1: 2–7.
Kline, Monte. 2013. “Monte Kline.” Accessed February 26. www.pacifichealthcenter.
com/monte-kline.html.
Knechtle, John C. 2003. “If We Don’t Know What It Is, How Do We Know If It’s
Established?” Brandeis Law Journal 41.3: 521.
Knierim, Thomas. 2013. “The Four Noble Truths.” Accessed February 26. www.the-
bigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html.
Koenig, Harold G. 1997. Is Religion Good for Your Health? The Effects of Religion on
Physical and Mental Health. New York: Haworth.
Kong, Jian, et al. 2007. “Acupuncture De Qi, from Qualitative History to Quantitative
Measurement.” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 12: 1059–1070.
Koontz, Katy. 2003. “Energy Medicine Goes Mainstream: Techniques to Balance Your
Energy Are among the Most Widely Used Disciplines in Alternative Medicine.”
Natural Health 33.8: 100–103, 139–141.
Kordi, Ramin, et al., eds. 2009. Combat Sports Medicine. London: Springer.
Kordich, Jay. 2012. “Jay Kordich Juicers.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
jaykordich.com/Jay-Kordich-Juicers-C7.aspx
Kornfield, Jack. 1993. A Path with Heart: A Guide through the Perils and Promises of
Spiritual Life. New York: Bantam.
Kosmin, Barry A. and Ariela Keysar. 2009. ARIS 2008 Summary Report. Hartford,
Conn.: Trinity College.
Krieger, Dolores. 1975. “Therapeutic Touch: The Imprimatur of Nursing.” American
Journal of Nursing 75.5: 784–787.
 Bibliography 273

———. 1979. The Therapeutic Touch: How to Use Your Hands to Help or to Heal.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
———. 1981. Foundations for Holistic Health Nursing Practices: The Renaissance Nurse.
Philadelphia: Lippincott.
———. 1987. Living the Therapeutic Touch: Healing as a Lifestyle. New York: Dodd,
Mead.
———. 1993. Accepting Your Power to Heal: The Personal Practice of Therapeutic Touch.
Santa Fe, N.M.: Bear.
———. 1997. Therapeutic Touch Inner Workbook: Ventures in Transpersonal Healing.
Sante Fe, N.M.: Bear.
Krippner, Stanley, and Benjamin Colodzin. 1981. “Folk Medicine and Herbal
Healing: An Overview,” 13–29. In Folk Medicine and Herbal Healing, ed. George
G. Meyer, Kenneth Blum, and John G. Cull. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas.
Krishna, Gopi. 1975. The Awakening of Kundalini. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Kritzer, Herbert M., and Mark J. Richards. 2003. “Jurisprudential Regimes and
Supreme Court Decision-making: The Lemon Regime and Establishment Clause
Cases.” Law & Society Review 37.4: 827–840.
Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Council-US, et al. 1988. Civil Action No. 85-2848
(D.D.C. 1986), 853 F.2d 948.
Kunin, Seth D. 2003. Religion: The Modern Theories. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins
University Press,.
Kunz, Dora. 1999. The Real World of Fairies: A True First Person Account. Wheaton,
Ill.: Quest.
Kunz, Dora, and Erik Peper. 1995. “Fields and Their Clinical Implications,” 213–
261. In Spiritual Healing: Doctors Examine Therapeutic Touch and Other Holistic
Treatments, ed. Dora Kunz. Wheaton, Ill.: Quest.
Kuriyama, Shigehisa. 1999. The Expressiveness of the Body and the Divergence of Greek
and Chinese Medicine. New York: Zone.
Kushi, Michio. 1977. The Book of Macrobiotics: The Universal Way of Health and
Happiness. Elmsford, N.Y.: Japan Publications Trading Co.
———. 2004. “Letter to Dear Friends.” Macrobiotic Guide (October 12). Accessed
February 26, 2013. macrobiotics.co.uk/letterfrommichio.htm.
Kushi, Michio, and Stephen Blauer. 1985. The Macrobiotic Way. Garden City Park,
N.Y.: Avery.
Kushi, Michio, and Alex Jack. 2009. The Cancer Prevention Diet: The Macrobiotic
Approach to Preventing and Relieving Cancer. Rev. ed. New York: St. Martin’s.
Lake, James, and David Spiegel, eds. 2007. Complementary and Alternative Treatments
in Mental Health Care. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publications.
Langer, Gary. 2005. “Poll: Americans Searching for Pain Relief.” ABC News (May
9). Accessed February 26, 2013. abcnews.go.com/Health/PainManagement/
story?id=732395.
274 Bibliography

Langworthy, J. M., and C. le Fleming. 2005. “Consent or Submission? The Practice

of Consent within UK Chiropractic.” Journal of Manipulative and Physiological
Therapeutics 28.1: 15–24.
La Reau, Reneé. 2005. “Tuesdays with Father Yogi.” National Catholic Reporter 41.39:
14–15.
Leavitt, Judith Walzer. 1986. Brought to Bed: Childbearing in America, 1750 to 1950.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Leavitt, Judith Walzer, and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. 1978. Sickness and Health
in America: Readings in the History of Medicine and Public Health. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Ledermann, E. K. 1986. Philosophy and Medicine. Brookfield, Vt.: Gower.
Lee, A., and L. T. Y. Fan. 2009. “Stimulation of the Wrist Acupuncture Point P6
for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting.” CDSR: 2.CD003281.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3.
Lee, Cyndi. 2011. “Basics: Eagle Pose.” Yoga Journal (March 1): 44–50.
Lee, Matthew T., and Margaret M. Poloma. 2009. A Sociological Study of the Great
Commandment in Pentecostalism: The Practice of Godly Love as Benevolent Service.
Lewiston, N.Y. Edwin Mellen.
Lee, S. W. 2008. “Acupuncture versus Sham Acupuncture for Chronic Prostatitis/
Chronic Pelvic Pain.” American Journal of Medicine 121.1: 79.e1–79.e7.
Lee v. Weisman. 1992. 505 U.S. 577.
Lefebure, Leo D. 1996. “Divergence, Convergence: Buddhist-Christian Encounters.”
Christian Century 113: 964–971.
Lemberg, David. 2009. “Integrative Medicine and Cancer Treatment—Urban Zen
Initiative at Beth Israel Medical Center” (February 14). Accessed February 26,
2013. scienceandsociety.net/2009/02/14/integrative-medicine-and-cancer-treat-
ment-urban-zen-initiative-at-beth-israel-medical-center.
Lemon v. Kurtzman. 1971. 403 U.S. 602.
Lennox, Kaitlyn. 2009. “Yoga: Transformations of the Practice and the Practitioner.”
Unpublished paper, December 16.
Lerner, Irving J., and B. J. Kennedy. 1992. “The Prevalence of Questionable Methods
of Cancer Treatment in the United States.” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
42.3: 181–191.
Let Us Reason Ministries. 2009. “Chiropractic.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
letusreason.org/NAM33.htm.
Levi, Edward H. 1948. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Leviton, Richard. 1993. “Celebrating 100 Years of Yoga in America.” Yoga Journal
(May/June): 67–70.
Li, Zhisui. 1994. The Private Life of Chairman Mao: The Inside Story of the Man Who
Made Modern China. London: Chatto and Windus.
Lidell, Lucy. 1983. The Sivananda Companion to Yoga. New York: Simon & Schuster.
 Bibliography 275

Lin, Phylis Lan. 1972. “The Chiropractor, Chiropractic, and Process: A Study of the
Sociology of an Occupation.” Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri-Columbia.
Linde, Klaus, et al. 1997. “Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects?
A Meta-analysis of Placebo-controlled Trials.” Lancet 350.9081: 834–843.
———. 1999. “Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of
Homeopathy.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 52.7: 631–636.
———. 2009a. “Acupuncture for Migraine Prophylaxis.” CDSR: 1.CD001218.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001218.pub2.
———. 2009b. “Acupuncture for Tension-type Headache.” CDSR: 1.CD007587.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007587.
Linde, Klaus, M. M. Berner, and L. Kriston. 2008. “St John’s Wort for Major
Depression.” CDSR: 4.CD000448.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000448.pub3.
Lints-Dzaman, Fern, Sidney Scheiner, and Larry Schwartz, eds. 1980. Who’s Who in
Chiropractic, 2nd ed. Littleton, Colo.: Who’s Who in Chiropractic International
Publishing.
Lipinski, Kathie. 2004. “Making Reiki Real.” Accessed February 26, 2013. iarp.org/
MakingReikiRealArticle.html.
Logan, Dana. 2010. Field notes. Boulder, Colo. August.
Loizzo, Joseph, Mary Charlson, and Janey Peterson. 2009. “A Program in
Contemplative Self-Healing: Stress, Allostasis, and Learning in the Indo-Tibetan
Tradition.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (August): 123–147.
L’Orange, Darlena. 1998. Herbal Healing Secrets of the Orient. Paramus, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Lori, William E., et al. 2009. “Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative
Therapy” (March 25). Accessed February 26, 2013. old.usccb.org/doctrine/
Evaluation_Guidelines_finaltext_2009-03.pdf.
Lovan, Dylan. 2010. “Albert Mohler, Southern Baptist Leader, on Yoga: Not
Christianity.” Associated Press (October 7). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/albert-mohler-southern-ba_n_753797.html.
Love, Robert. 2006. “Fear of Yoga.” Columbia Journalism Review 45.4: 80–90.
Lowell, James E. 2006. “Background History of the Gerson Clinic.” Nutrition Forum
Newsletter (July 23). Accessed February 26, 2013. cancertreatmentwatch.org/
reports/gerson.shtml.
Lübeck, Walter, Frank Arjava Petter, and William Lee Rand. 2001. The Spirit of Reiki:
The Complete Handbook of the Reiki System. Twin Lakes, Wis.: Lotus.
Luhrmann, Tanya M. 1989. Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft: Ritual Magic in
Contemporary England. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Lukoff, D. 1988. “The SEN Hotline: Results from a Telephone Survey.” SEN Newsletter
(March).
Ly, Phuong. 2006. “Churches, Synagogues Mingle Yoga with Beliefs.” Washington
Post (January 1). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123101136_pf.html.
276 Bibliography

Lyles, Margaret Lee. 2013. “My Christian Faith & Reiki.” Accessed February 26. www.
christianreiki.org/info/Articles/MyChristianFaithReiki.htm.
Lynch v. Donnelly. 1984. 465 U.S. 668, 687–694.
Lyon, R. D. 1977. “Chiropractic Philosophy and the Bible.” Today’s Chiropractic: 31.
Lytle, C. D. 1993. “An Overview of Acupuncture.” Washington, D.C.: FDA.
Macshane, Frank. 1964. “Walden and Yoga.” New England Quarterly 37.3: 322–342.
Maddox, John, James Randi, and Walter W. Stewart. 1988. “‘High-dilution’
Experiments a Delusion.” Nature 334.6180: 287–290.
“Madonna Lyrics.” 2013. Accessed February 26. www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/madonna/
shantiashtangi.html.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. 1968. Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. New York:
Bantam.
Main, John. 1990. The Way of Unknowing. New York: Crossroad.
Male, Ronald R. 1989. The Bible and Homeopathy: A Defense of Purist Homeopathic
Medicine. London: Missionary School of Medicine.
Malette v. Shulman et al. 1990. 72 O.R. (2d) 417 (Ont. C.A.).
Malkmus, George H., Peter Shockey, and Stowe Shockey. 2006. The Hallelujah
Diet: Experience the Optimal Health You Were Meant to Have. Shippensburg, Pa.:
Destiny Image.
Malnak v. Yogi. 1979. 592 F.2d 197 (3rd Cir.).
Manheimer, Eric, et al. 2005. “Meta-analysis: Acupuncture for Low Back Pain.”
Annals of Internal Medicine 142: 651–663.
Marchand, Murielle. 2013. “Reiki Helped Me Understand Christianity Better.”
Accessed February 26. www.christianreiki.org/info/Articles/a.htm.
Maria Kannon Zen Center. 2010. “About MKZC.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
mkzc.org/about.
Martin, Becky. 2013. “Christ Centered Yoga.” Accessed February 26. www.facebook.
com/pages/Christ-Centered-Yoga/107856375922350.
Martin, Steven C. 1993. “Chiropractic and the Social Context of Medical Technology,
1895–1925.” Technology and Culture, Special Issue: Biomedical and Behavioral
Technology 34.4: 808–834.
———. 1994. “‘The Only Truly Scientific Method of Healing’: Chiropractic and
American Science, 1895–1990.” Isis 85.2: 207–227.
Martinez, Santos F. 2009. “Wushu (Chinese Martial Arts),” 299–321. In Kordi et al.
2009.
Matthews, Dawn D., ed. 2002. Alternative Medicine Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Detroit,
Mich.: Omnigraphics, 2002.
Maurer, Edward. 1998. “Chairman’s Message.” Journal of the American Chiropractic
Association 35.11: 18–20.
Maxwell, Joe. 1996. “Nursing’s New Age?” Christianity Today (February 5): 96–99.
Mayo Clinic. 2012. “Acupuncture” (January 25). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
mayoclinic.com/health/acupuncture/MY00946.
 Bibliography 277

McConkey, Steve. 2010. “Hindu Yoga Accepted While Christian Symbols Are Taken
Down” (October 5). Accessed February 26, 2013. http://www.lighthousetrailsre-
search.com/newsletters/2010/newsletter20101005.htm#2.
McCoy, Matthew. 2004. “The Advocate Update Report.” World Chiropractic Alliance (April).
Accessed April 28, 2010. www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/news/news.htm.
McDonald, William P. 2003. How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of
North American Chiropractors. Ada, Ohio: Institute for Social Research, Ohio
Northern University.
McFarlane, Stewart. 1991. “The Mystique of Martial Arts—A Reply to Professor
Keenan’s Response.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 18.4: 355–368.
McGinn, Bernard. 2006. The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism. New York:
Modern Library.
McGuire, Meredith B., and Debra Kantor. 1988. Ritual Healing in Suburban America.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1994.
McMahan, David L. 2002. “Repackaging Zen for the West,” 218–229. In Westward
Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, ed. Charles S. Prebish and Martin Baumann.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
———. 2009. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. New York: Oxford University
Press.
McSherry, H. L. 1952. A Christian Concept of Chiropractic Philosophy. Norge, Va.:
McSherry.
Mebane, Sister Mary. 2013. “Letter to ChristianReiki.org.” Accessed February 26, 2013.
www.christianreiki.org/info/NunsPriestsMinisters/SisterMaryMebane.htm.
Meehan, Thérèse Connell. 1999. “Therapeutic Touch,” 173–188. In Nursing
Interventions: Effective Nursing Treatments, 3rd ed., ed. Gloria M. Bulechek and
Joanne C. McCloskey. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Melchart, D., et al. 1999. “Acupuncture for Recurrent Headaches: A Systematic
Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Cephalalgia 19.9: 779–786.
Mentgen, Janet L., and Mary Jo Trapp Bulbrook. 1994. Healing Touch Level One
Notebook. Carrboro, N.C.: Center for Healing Touch.
Mercola, Joseph. 2013a. “Meet Dr. Mercola.” Accessed February 26. www.mercola.
com/forms/background.htm.
———. 2013b “Services Available at Dr. Mercola’s Natural Health Clinic.” Accessed
February 26. naturalhealthcenter.mercola.com/services.aspx.
Merton, Thomas. 1948. The Seven Storey Mountain. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Metroka, Michael. 2010. “Avoiding the Perils of Isomorphism: A Case Study of a
Yoga Studio.” Unpublished paper, May 5.
Milazzo, Stefanie, et al. 2006. “Laetrile Treatment for Cancer.” CDSR: 2.CD005476.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD005476.pub2.
Miles, Pamela. 2006. Reiki: A Comprehensive Guide. New York: Penguin.
278 Bibliography

Miller, Arlene. 1987. “Should Christian Nurses Practice Therapeutic Touch?: No.”
Journal of Christian Nursing 4.4: 15–19, 29–30.
Miller, Franklin G. 2010. “Consent to Clinical Research,” 375–404. In Miller and
Wertheimer 2010.
Miller, Franklin G., and Alan Wertheimer, eds. 2010. The Ethics of Consent: Theory and
Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Franklin G., et al. 2004. “Ethical Issues Concerning Research in
Complementary and Alternative Medicine.” JAMA 291.5: 599–604.
Minow, Martha. 2002. Partners, Not Rivals: Privatization and the Public Good. Boston:
Beacon.
Mitchell v. Helms. 2000. 530 U.S. 793.
Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. 2010a. “The Meaning of Yoga: A Conversation with Stephanie
Syman and Doug Groothuis Thinking in Public” (September 20). Accessed
February 26, 2013. www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/20/the-meaning-of-yoga-a-
conversation-with-stephanie-syman-and-dough-groothius.
———. 2010b. “The Subtle Body—Should Christians Practice Yoga?” (September
20). Accessed February 26, 2013. http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/20/
the-subtle-body-should-christians-practice-yoga/.
———. 2010c. “Yahoo, Yoga, and Yours Truly” (October 7). Accessed February 26,
2013. www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/07/yahoo-yoga-and-yours-truly.
Monica, Laura. 2013. “WholyFitTM: Better Than Yoga! About Us.” Accessed February
26. www.wholyfit.org/about-us.html.
Montenegro, Marcia. 2009. “Christian Yoga: An Oxymoron?” (December).
Accessed February 26, 2013. www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_
ChristianYoga.html.
Mooney, Sharon Fish. 2005. “Worldviews in Conflict: A Historical and Sociological
Analysis of the Controversy Surrounding Therapeutic Touch in Nursing.”
Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester.
Moore, David. 2002. “Body & Soul, Yoga w/o the Yoyos.” Media Life (June 17).
Accessed February 26, 2013. www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/jun02/
jun17/1_mon/news3monday.html.
Moore, J. Stuart. 1993. Chiropractic in America: The History of a Medical Alternative.
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Moore, R. Laurence. 1983. “The Occult Connection? Mormonism, Christian Science,
and Spiritualism,” 135–161. In The Occult in America: New Historical Perspectives,
ed. Howard Kerr and Charles L. Crow. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Moran, Susan. 2006. “Meditate on This: Yoga Is Big Business.” New York Times
(December 28): C3.
Morris, David B. 1991. The Culture of Pain. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Moss, Donald. 2002. “The Circle of the Soul: The Role of Spirituality in Health Care.”
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 27.4: 283–297.
Mullin, Robert Bruce. 1996. Miracles and the Modern Religious Imagination. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
 Bibliography 279

Muramoto, O. 1998. “Bioethics of the Refusal of Blood by Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Part 1. Should Bioethical Deliberation Consider Dissidents’ Views?” Journal of
Medical Ethics 24: 223–230.
Murphy, Sherry L., Jiaquan Xu, and Kenneth D. Kochanek. 2012. “Deaths: Preliminary
Data for 2010.” National Vital Statistics Reports 60.4: 1–51.
NACM. 2008. “NACM.” Accessed May 30. www.chiromed.org.
Naisbitt, John. 1982. Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. New
York: Warner Books.
Narayanananda, Swami. 1970. The Primal Power in Man or the Kundalini Shakti.
Rishikesh, India: Narayanananda Universal Yoga Trust.
Natanson v. Kline. 1960. 187 Kan. 186, 354 P.2d 670.
NCCAM. 2007. “Energy Medicine: An Overview.” Publication No. D235. Bethesda,
Md.: NIH.
———. 2009. “Reiki: An Introduction.” Publication No. D315. Bethesda, Md.: NIH.
———. 2010a. “Acupuncture for Pain.” Publication No. D435. Bethesda, Md.: NIH.
———. 2010b. “Homeopathy: An Introduction.” Publication No. D439. Bethesda,
Md.: NIH.
———. 2010c. “Meditation.” Publication No. D308. Bethesda, Md.: NIH.
———. 2010d. “Tai Chi: An Introduction.” Publication No. D322. Bethesda, Md.: NIH.
———. 2012a. “CAM Basics.” Publication No. D347. Bethesda, Md.: NIH.
———. 2012b. “Congressional Justification 2013” (April 17). Accessed February 26,
2013. nccam.nih.gov/about/budget/congressional/2013.
———. 2012c. “Yoga for Health.” Publication Nos. D412, 472. Bethesda, Md.: NIH,
2008; 2012.
———. 2013. “NCCAM’s Research Centers Program” (November 30). Accessed
February 26, 2013. nccam.nih.gov/research/centers.
NCI. 2012a. “Essiac/Flor Essence (PDQ)” (August 10). Accessed February 26, 2013.
www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/essiac/HealthProfessional.
———. 2012b. “Laetrile/Amygdalin (PDQ)” (August 10). Accessed February 26,
2013. www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/HealthProfessional.
———. 2013a. “Cancell/Cantron/Protocel (PDQ)” (January 18). Accessed February
26. www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cancell/HealthProfessional/page1.
———. 2013b. “Mistletoe” (February 20). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.cancer.
gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/mistletoe/patient/page1.
———. 2013c. “Yoga.” Accessed February 26. www.cancer.gov/
dictionary?cdrid=532135.
Needle, Richard. 2010. “Cancer: Staging and Treatment.” Accessed February 26,
2013. dowsingforhealth.com/videos/cancer-alternative-treatments.
Nemri, Karin. 2004. “Aiijii Healing and How the Chakras Relate to Disease and
Healing.” Academy of Religion and Psychical Research Proceedings (October 1):
36–42.
Newman, Margaret. 1994. Health as Expanding Consciousness, 2nd ed. St. Louis, Mo.:
National League for Nursing.
280 Bibliography

Newport, John P. 1998. The New Age Movement and the Biblical Worldview: Conflict
and Dialogue. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
New Thought Accreditation Commission. 2007. “Vision.” Accessed February 26,
2013. www.newthoughtac.org/index.html.
Nienhuys, Jan Willem. 2010. “A Total Disaster for Homeopathy: The Donner
Report.” Homeopathie (July 20). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.kwakzalverij.
nl/1050/A_total_disaster_for_homeopathy.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1887. The Gay Science [Die fröhliche Wissenschaft]. Trans.
Walter Arnold Kaufman. New York: Vintage, 1974.
NIH. 1997. Acupuncture: Consensus Statement 15.5: 1–34.
———. 2013. ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed February 26. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/
results?term=Reiki.
Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy D. Wilson. 1977. “The Halo Effect: Evidence
for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 35.4: 250–256.
Nissenbaum, Stephen. 1980. Sex, Diet, and Debility in Jacksonian America: Sylvester
Graham and Health Reform. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.
Nobelprize.org. 2001. Press Release (October 10). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/press.html.
Noll, Mark A. 2001. American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction. Malden,
Mass.: Blackwell.
Noll, Mark A., Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden. 1983. The Search for
Christian America. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway.
Numbers, Ronald L. 1978. “The Fall and Rise of the American Medical Profession,”
225–236. In Sickness and Health in America: Readings in the History of Medicine
and Public Health, ed. Judith Walzer Leavitt and Ronald L. Numbers. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
———. 2003. “Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs,” 265–285.
In When Science and Christianity Meet, ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L.
Numbers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
O’Connell, Brian. 2012. “Empty Pockets: Americans Spending More on Health Care in
2012” (May 8). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.mainstreet.com/article/smart-
spending/budgeting/empty-pockets-americans-spending-more-health-care-2012.
O’Connor, D., S. C. Marshall, and N. Massy-Westropp. 2003. “Non-surgical
Treatment (Other Than Steroid Injection) for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.” CDSR:
1.CD003219.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003219.
Ogle, Marguerite. 2012. “The Pilates-Yoga Connection” (October 12). Accessed
February 26, 2013. pilates.about.com/od/whatispilates/a/YogaPilatesConn.htm.
Ohsawa, Georges. 1965. Zen Macrobiotics: The Art of Rejuvenation and Longevity. Rev.
Lou Oles and Shayne Oles Suehle. Los Angeles, Calif.: Ohsawa Foundation.
Ojasoo, T., and J. C. Doré. 1999. “Citation Bias in Medical Journals.” Scientometrics
45.1: 81–94.
 Bibliography 281

Oldendick, Robert, et al. 2000. “Population-Based Survey of Complementary and

Alternative Medicine Usage, Patient Satisfaction, and Physician Involvement.”
Southern Medical Journal 93.4: 375–381.
O’Mathúna, Dónal P. 2001. “What Is Homeopathy?” Journal of Christian Nursing
18.4: 7.
O’Mathúna, Dónal, and Walter L. Larimore. 2006. Alternative Medicine: The Christian
Handbook. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
O’Neal, Sam. 2007. “Yoga Is a Stretch.” Christianity Today (Spring). Accessed February
26, 2013. www.christianitytoday.com/le/2007/spring/15.11.html.
One Christian Ministry. 2009a. “Christianity and the Use of Acupuncture/
Acupressure” (March 4). Accessed Februrary 26, 2013. www.onechristianministry.
com/healthy-life-148.html.
———. 2009b. “The Truth about Meditation” (July 18). Accessed February 26, 2013.
www.onechristianministry.com/healthy-life-228.html.
O’Neill, Onora. 2003. “Some Limits of Informed Consent.” Journal of Medical Ethics
29: 4–7.
———. 2007. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
Opp, James William. 2005. The Lord for the Body: Religion, Medicine, and Protestant
Faith Healing in Canada, 1880–1930. Ithaca, N.Y.: McGill-Queen’s University
Press.
Orsi, Robert A. 2005. Between Heaven and Earth: The Religious Worlds People
Make and the Scholars Who Study Them. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
Oschman, James L. 2000. Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis. New York: Churchill
Livingstone.
———. 2002. “Science and the Human Energy Field.” Reiki News Magazine 1.3:
32–41.
———. 2013. Curriculum vitae. Accessed February 26. www.icimed.com/DR_CV/
James_L_Oschman_CV.pdf.
Ospina, Maria B., et al. 2007. Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research.
AHRQ Publication No. 07-E010. Rockville, Md.: AHRQ.
Osteopathic Medical College Information Book. 2008. Chevy Chase, Md.: American
Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.
O’Toole, James M. 2004. Habits of Devotion: Catholic Religious Practice in Twentieth-
century America. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Owens, Darryl E. 2006. “‘Christian Yoga’ Strikes a New Pose.” DenverPost.com (May
14). Accessed February 26, 2013. rev217.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=counte
rfeit&action=print&thread=960.
Page, Jeremy, and Ben Hoyle. 2008. “Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Dies a Recluse.”
The Times (February 7). Accessed February 26, 2013. forums.ivillage.com/t5/
Breaking-News-Stories/Maharishi-Mahesh-Yogi-dies-a-recluse/td-p/6658374.
282 Bibliography

Palmer, B. J. [n.d.] Do Chiropractors Pray? Davenport, Iowa: Palmer School of

Chiropractic.
———. [n.d.] The Lord’s Work. Davenport, Iowa: Palmer School of Chiropractic.
———. 1949. The Bigness of the Fellow Within. Davenport, Iowa: Chiropractic
Fountain Head.
———. 1950a. Fight to Climb. Davenport, Iowa: Chiropractic Fountain Head.
———. 1950b. Up from Below the Bottom. Davenport, Iowa: Chiropractic Fountain
Head, rpt. 1991.
———. 1951. History Repeats. Davenport, Iowa: Chiropractic Fountain Head.
———. 1961. The Glory of Going On. Davenport, Iowa: Palmer School of Chiropractic.
———. 1966. Our Masterpiece. Davenport, Iowa: Palmer College of Chiropractic.
Palmer, D. D. 1910. The Chiropractor’s Adjuster: Text-book of the Science, Art and
Philosophy of Chiropractic for Students and Practitioners. Portland, Ore.: Portland
Printing House.
———. 1914. The Chiropractor. Los Angeles: Beacon Light.
Pals, Daniel L. 1996. Seven Theories of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Parachin, Victor M. 2007. Eastern Wisdom for Western Minds. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis.
Park, Robert L. 2008. Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Passalacqua, Christopher. 2006. “Advancement or Decline? Still Untold, Yet Ever
Telling.” The Chiropractic Choice: A Publication of the International Chiropractors
Association 5.2: 16–21.
Patience T’ai Chi Association. 2012a. “A Brief History of Tai Chi Chuan.” Accessed
February 26, 2013. www.patiencetaichi.com/public/107.cfm.
———. 2012b. “What Is Tai Chi Chuan?” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.patience-
taichi.com/public/106.cfm.
Paul, Russill. 2009. Jesus in the Lotus: The Mystical Doorway between Christianity and
Yogic Spirituality. Novato, Calif.: New World Library.
Pavlik, Sarah E. 2001. “Is Yoga Really So Bad.” Today’s Christian Woman 23.5: 50–53.
Pearson, Neil. 2002. “Homeopathy: The Test—Transcript.” Horizons (November 26).
Accessed February 26, 2013. www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopa-
thytrans.shtml.
Pelletier, Kenneth. 1977. Mind as Healer, Mind as Slayer: A Holistic Approach to
Preventing Stress Disorders. New York: Delacorte.
Pennick, V., and G. Young. 2007. “Interventions for Preventing and Treating Pelvic
and Back Pain in Pregnancy.” CDSR: 2.CD001139.DOI:10.1002/14651858.
CD001139.pub2.
Peretti, Frank. 2003. This Present Darkness. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003.
Perez-De-Albeniz, Alberto, and Jeremy Holmes. 2000. “Meditation: Concepts, Effects
and Uses in Therapy.” International Journal of Psychotherapy 5.1: 49–59.
Pernick, Martin S. 1985. A Calculus of Suffering: Pain, Professionalism, and Anesthesia
in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Columbia University Press.
 Bibliography 283

Peterson, B. 1998. “Special Communications: A Compilation of the Thoughts of

George W. Northup, D.O., on the Philosophy of Osteopathic Medicine.” Journal
of the American Osteopathic Association 98.1: 53–57.
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 2008. U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 2008.
Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Pfeifer, Samuel. 1988. Healing at Any Price? The Hidden Dangers of Alternative
Medicine. Milton Keynes, U.K.: Word.
Pharmaca. 2011. “Our Story.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.pharmaca.com/
about.aspx.
Phillips, Carl V. 2004. “Publication Bias in Situ.” BMC Medical Research Methodology
4.20: doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-20.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. 2013. “The New Four Food
Groups.” Accessed February 26. www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=137.
Pinto, Claudio. 2007. “Pharmacist Fights $1 Million Fine over Health-food Therapies”
(September 11). Accessed February 26, 2013. educate-yourself.org/cn/pharma-
cistfinedonemillion14jun07.shtml.
Plait, Philip. 2002. Bad Astronomy. New York: John Wiley.
Plamindon, R. L. 1995. “Summary of 1994 ACA Statistical Study.” Journal of the
American Chiropractic Association 32: 57–63.
POCA. 2013. “New Here?” Accessed February 26. www.pocacoop.com/index.php/
new-here-inside.
Pontifical Council for Culture and Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
2003. Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian Reflection on the
“New Age.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_
new-age_en.html.
Pope Paul VI. 1964. Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio. Accessed February
26, 2013. www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/
vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html.
———. 1965. Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
Nostra Aetate Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965. Accessed
February 26, 2013. www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.
Porkert, Manfred. 1974. The Theoretical Foundations of Chinese Medicine: Systems of
Correspondence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Porter, Roy. 1999. “Western Medicine and Pain: Historical Perspectives,” 364–380.
In Religion, Health and Suffering, ed. John R. Hinnells and Roy Porter. New York:
Kegan Paul International.
Poulin, Fernan. 2004. “Energy Medicine and Spinal Care.” New Life Journal: Carolina
Edition 5.6: 10–11.
Powers, Ann. 2000. “American Influences Help Redefine Practice of Yoga.” New York
Times (August 1): F7.
284 Bibliography

Prem, Yogi Baba. 2006. “There is no Christian Yoga” (October 18). Accessed February
26, 2013. yogibabaprem.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/10/there-is-no-christian-
yoga.htm.
Press, Bud. 2007. “LifeWay’s Fitness Expert Promotes Yoga: New Age Movement
Continues to Haunt Southern Baptist Convention” (June 29). Accessed February
26, 2013. truthpatrol.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/lifeways-fitness-expert-promotes-
yoga.html.
———. 2012. “John MacArthur, Christians, and Yoga.” Accessed October 6. www.
christianresearchservice.com/JohnMacArthurYoga2.htm.
Pressman, Maurie D. 2003. “Bridging Personality and Spirit: Alzheimer’s
Isn’t What You Think It Is.” Accessed May 23, 2011. www.lightworks.com/
MonthlyAspectarian/2003/April/pressman.htm.
Price, Len, and Shirley Price. 2007. Aromatherapy for Health Professionals. New York:
Churchill Livingstone.
PR Newswire. 1999. “NIH Awards $8 Million Grant for First Natural Medicine
Research Center for Minorities” (September 30). Accessed February 26, 2013.
www.thefreelibrary.com/NIH+Awards+$8+Million+Grant+for+First+Natural+
Medicine+Research. . .-a055919295.
———. 2003. “New Safe, No Worry Medicines™ From EuroPharma Deliver results
without Side Effects” (July 17). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.thefreelibrary.
com/New+Safe,+No+Worry+Medicines(TM)+From+EuroPharma+Deliver+Resu
lts. . .-a0105538795.
Proctor, M., et al. 2006. “Spinal Manipulation for Dysmenorrhoea.” CDSR:
3.CD002119.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD002119.pub3.
Quinn, Janet F. 1981. “Therapeutic Touch: One Nurse’s Evolution as a Healer,”
59–63. In Therapeutic Touch: A Book of Readings, ed. Marianne Borelli and Patricia
Heidt. New York: Springer.
———. 1989. “Therapeutic Touch as Energy Exchange: Replication and Extension.”
Nursing Science Quarterly 2: 79–87.
———. 1992. Therapeutic Touch: Healing through Human Energy Fields [videotape].
New York: National League for Nursing.
Quinn, Janet F., and A. J. Strelkauskas. 1993. “Psychoimmunological Effects of
Therapeutic Touch Practitioners and Recently Bereaved Recipients: A Pilot
Study.” Advances in Nursing Science 15.4: 13–26.
Rachlin, Howard, and David I. Laibson, eds. 1997. The Matching Law: Papers in
Psychology and Economics by Richard J. Herrnstein. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Radha, Swami Sivenanda. 2006. Hatha Yoga: The Hidden Language; Symbols, Secrets &
Metaphor. Kootenay Bay, B.C.: Timeless Books.
Ramaratnam, Sridharan, and Kalpana Sridharan. 2002. “Yoga for Epilepsy.” CDSR:
1.CD001524.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001524.
 Bibliography 285

Ramey, David W., and Bernard E. Rollin. 2003. Complementary and Alternative
Veterinary Medicine Considered. Ames: Iowa State Press.
Ramsey, Paul. 1970. The Patient as Person: Explorations in Medical Ethics. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press.
Rand, William L. 1991. “Was Jesus a Reiki Master?” Reiki News (Summer): 15396533.
———. 2013a. “Reiki in Hospitals.” Accessed February 26. www.centerforreikire-
search.org/Articles_ReikiInHosp.aspx#7.
———. 2013b. “A Response to the Bishops’ Statement on Reiki.” Accessed February 26.
www.christianreiki.org/info/BishopsStatement/ResponseToBishopsStatement.
htm.
Raposa, Michael L. 2003. Meditation & the Martial Arts. Charlottesville: University of
Virginia Press.
———. 2007. “Martial Spirituality and the Logic of Pragmatism.” American Journal
of Theology & Philosophy 28.2: 165–177.
Raso, Jack. 1994. “Alternative” Healthcare: A Comprehensive Guide. Amherst, N.Y.:
Prometheus.
Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph. 1989. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some
Aspects of Christian Meditation. Accessed February 26, 2013. www.ewtn.com/
library/curia/cdfmed.htm.
Rawdon, Larry. 2011. “Osa’s Garden, Inc.: Health God’s Way.” Accessed February 26,
2013. www.osasgarden.com.
Reed, John C. 1992. “Alternative Systems of Medical Practice,” 111. In Berman and
Larson 1992.
Reed, Louis Schultz. 1932. The Healing Cults: A Study of Sectarian Medical Practice;
Its Extent, Causes, and Control. Washington, D.C.: Committee on the Costs of
Medical Care.
Reid, Mike. 2007. “The Seven Laws of the Power of Attraction.” Chiropractic Journal:
A Publication of the World Chiropractic Alliance 21.11: 28–29.
Reisser, Paul C., Teri K. Reisser, and John Weldon. 1987. New Age Medicine: A Christian
Perspective on Holistic Health, rev. ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Renken, John. 2012. “John Renken’s Bio.” Accessed October 6. cmmaa.com/about.
Reston, James. 1971. “Now, About My Operation in Peking.” New York Times (July
26): 1, 6.
Reverby, Susan M. 2011. “‘Normal Exposure’ and Inoculation Syphilis: A PHS
‘Tuskegee’ Doctor in Guatemala, 1946–48.” Journal of Policy History (January):
6–28.
Ricci, Matteo. 1953. China in the Sixteenth Century: The Journals of Matthew Ricci,
1583–1610. Trans. Louis J. Gallagher. New York: Random House.
Richardson, Mary Ann, et al. 2000. “Complementary/Alternative Medicine Use in
a Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Implications for Oncology.” Journal of
Clinical Oncology 18.13: 2505–2014.
286 Bibliography

Rieker, Hans Ulrich. 1971. The Yoga of Light: Hatha Yoga Pradipika. New York:
Seabury.
Robaina, Holly Vicente. 2005a. “Take a Pass on Yoga.” Christianity Today (June).
Accessed February 26, 2013. www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/juneweb-only/
123-22.0.html.
———. 2005b. “The Truth about Yoga.” Today’s Christian Woman 27.2 (March/April):
40–43.
Rocca, Sabrina. 2010. “Reiki Christian.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.experience
festival.com/wp/article/reiki-christian.
Rock, Casey. 2004. “Voices from the Mat,” 95–115. In Ryan 2004.
Rondberg, Terry A. 1989. The Philosophy of Chiropractic. Chandler, Ariz.: T. Rondberg.
Roof, Wade Clark. 1993. A Generation of Seekers: The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby
Boom Generation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Rosa, Linda, Emily Rosa, Larry Sarner, and Stephen Barrett. 1998. “A Close Look at
Therapeutic Touch.” JAMA 279: 1005–1010.
Rosenberg, Charles E. 1979. “The Therapeutic Revolution: Medicine, Meaning,
and Social Change in Nineteenth-Century America,” 3–25. In The Therapeutic
Revolution: Essays in the Social History of Medicine, ed. Morris J. Vogel and Charles
E. Rosenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Roth, Nancy. 2001. An Invitation to Christian Yoga, rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Cowley.
Rothstein, William G. 1988. “The Botanical Movements and Orthodox Medicine,”
29–51. In Gevitz 1988b.
Rowe, Todd. 2005. “Inspiring Students on Their Homeopathic Journey.” American
Journal of Homeopathic Medicine 98.2: 83–84.
Rubinstein, S. M., et al. 2011. “Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low-back
Pain.” CDSR: 2.CD008112.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2.
Rudolf Steiner Health Center. 2010. “Anthroposophical Cancer Treatment.” Accessed
February 25, 2013. www.steinerhealth.org/programs/cancer-treatment.
Ruggie, Mary. 2004. Marginal to Mainstream: Alternative Medicine in America.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, W. Ritchie. 1972. “Yoga and the Vertebral Arteries.” British Medical Journal
(March 11): 685.
Ryan, Robert. 1997. “Cancer Research—A Super Fraud?” Accessed February 26,
2013. www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/cancer.html.
Ryan, Father Thomas, ed. 2004. Reclaiming the Body in Christian Spirituality. New
York: Paulist.
———. 2005. Yoga Prayer: An Embodied Christian Spiritual Practice (video recording).
New York: Paulist Productions.
Ryman, Daniele. 1991. Aromatherapy: The Complete Guide to Plant and Flower Essences
for Health and Beauty. New York: Bantam.
Sackett, D., et al. 1996. “Evidence-based Medicine: What It Is and What It Isn’t.”
British Medical Journal 312: 71–72.
 Bibliography 287

Said, Edward W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.

Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees. 1957. 154 Cal.App.2d 560,
317 P.2d.
Salladay, Susan A. 2002. “Should Christians Use Therapeutic Touch?” Christian
Bioethics 8.1: 25–42.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. 2000. 530 U.S. 290.
Saper, R., et al. 2004. “Prevalence and Patterns of Adult Yoga Use in the United
States: Results of a National Survey.” Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine
10.2: 44–49.
Satel, Sally. 2000. PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine. New
York: Basic.
Saxion, Valerie. 2003. Every Body Has Parasites: If You’re Alive, You’re at Risk!
Minneapolis, Minn.: Bronze Bow.
———. 2013. “Parasite/Candida Cleanse Programs.” Accessed February 26. www.
faithcenteredresources.com/authors/nutrition-centered-resources-parasite-can-
dida-cleanse-programs.asp.
Sayre-Adams, Jean, and Stephen G. Wright. 2001. The Theory and Practice of
Therapeutic Touch. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Scarry, Elaine. 1985. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals. 1914. 211 N.Y. 125.
Schmid, Ulla. 2007. “Geopathic Stress & Cancer.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
healingcancernaturally.com/geopathic-stress-and-cancer.html.
Schneider, Carl E. 1998. The Practice of Autonomy: Patients, Doctors, and Medical
Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2007. “Void for Vagueness.” Hastings Center Report 37.1: 10–11.
Schneiderman, R. M. 2010. “Flock Is Now a Fight Team in Some Ministries.” New York
Times (February 1). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/
us/02fight.html?hp.
Schnellmann v. Roettger. 2007. 373 S.C. 379, 645 S.E.2d 239.
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. 1963. 374 U.S. 203.
Schwartz, Susan. 2008. “Follow Your Nose: Aromatherapy Is Making a Comeback.”
South China Morning Post (June 13): Features.
Seager, Richard Hughes. 1999. Buddhism in America. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Sellers, Jeff M. 2003. “The Higher Self Gets Down to Business: An Old Movement
Appears Anew—in the Corporate World.” Christianity Today (February 1).
Accessed February 26, 2013. www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/february/1.34.
html.
Serraino, M., et al. 1999. “The Effect of an Oral Nutritional Supplement Enriched
with Fish Oil on Weight-loss in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer.” British Journal
of Cancer 81.1: 80–86.
288 Bibliography

Shakespeare, Jocasta. 2006. “Bend It Like Bikram.” The Observer (June 11): 38.
Shang, Aijing, et al. 2005. “Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects?
Comparative Study of Placebo-controlled Trials of Homoeopathy and Allopathy.”
Lancet 366.9487: 726–732.
Shelton, Jay W. 2004. Homeopathy: How It Really Works. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus
Park.
Shukla, Aseem. 2010. “Yoga: Stolen from the Hindus.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (April
25). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.post-gazette.com/pg/10115/1052860-109.
stm?cmpid=newspanel.
Shulman, Joey. 2007. “Osteopathic Medicine,” Alive 293 (March). Accessed February
26, 2013. www.alive.com/5939a15a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=543.
Singh, M., and R. R. Das. 2011. “Zinc for the Common Cold.” CDSR: 2.CD001364.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001364.pub3.
Singh, Simon, and Edzard Ernst. 2008. Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about
Alternative Medicine. New York: Norton.
Singleton, Mark. 2010. Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Skillen, Gary. 1997. “Are You Sleeping in a Cancer Zone?” Consumer Health
20.16. Accessed Feruary 26, 2013. www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.
cfm?ID=19990303212216.
Skyrme, Brenda. 1995. Martial Arts & Yoga: A Christian Viewpoint. West Sussex, U.K.:
New Wine.
Smidt, Corwin E., et al. 1999. “The Spirit-Filled Movements in Contemporary
America: A Survey Perspective,” 111–130. In Pentecostal Currents in American
Protestantism, ed. Edith L. Blumhofer, Russell P. Spittler, and Grant A. Wacker.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Smith, Adam. 1975. Powers of Mind. New York: Random House.
Smith, Andrea. 2005. Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide.
Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press.
Smith, Caroline A., C. T. Collins, and C. A. Crowther. 2011. “Aromatherapy for
Pain Management in Labour.” CDSR: 7.CD009215.DOI:10.1002/14651858.
CD009215.
Smith, Caroline A., C. A. Crowther, and J. Belby. 2002. “Acupuncture to Treat Nausea
and Vomiting in Early Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Birth 29: 1–9.
Smith Caroline A., et al. 2011a. “Acupuncture or Acupressure for Pain Management
in Labour.” CDSR: 7.CD009232.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009232.
———. 2011b. “Acupuncture for Dysmenorrhoea.” CDSR: 1.CD007854.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007854.pub2.
Smith, Gavin. 2012. “Pilates & Yoga Studies in the US: Market Research Report”
(October). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.ibisworld.com/industry/
pilates-yoga-studios.html.
 Bibliography 289

Smith, Jonathan Z. 2004. Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Smith, Linda. 2000. Called into Healing: Reclaiming Our Judeo-Christian Legacy of
Healing Touch. Arvada, Colo.: HTSM.
Smuts, Jan. 1926. Holism and Evolution. New York: Macmillan.
Sood, Amit, et al. 2005. “Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Acupuncture:
Methodological Diversity in Database Searching.” Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine 11.4: 719–722.
———. 2010. “Mind-Body Medicine,” 94–117. In Bauer et al. 2010.
Soyen Shaku. 1896. “Reply to a Christian Critic,” 137–140. In Asian Religions
in America, ed. Thomas A. Tweed and Stephen Prothero. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
Spaeth, D. G. 2000. “Spirituality in History Taking.” Journal of the American
Osteopathic Association 100.10: 641.
Spiro, Howard. 1997. “Clinical Reflections on the Placebo Phenomenon,” 37–55.
In The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration, ed. Anne Harrington.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Stark, Rodney. 2008. What Americans Really Believe: New Findings from the Baylor
Surveys of Religion. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press.
Stein, Diane. 1995. Essential Reiki: A Complete Guide to an Ancient Healing Art.
Freedom, Calif.: Crossing.
———. 2007. Essential Reiki Teaching Manual: A Companion Guide for Reiki Healers.
Berkeley, Calif.: Crossing.
Steinecke, Richard. 1996. “Informed Consent.” Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic
Association 40.1: 43–46.
Stevinson, C., and Edzard Ernst. 2002. “Risks Associated with Spinal Manipulation.”
American Journal of Medicine 112.7: 566–571.
Still, Andrew Taylor. 1910. Osteopathy: Research and Practice. Kirksville, Mo.: A. T. Still.
Stock, Brian. 2001. After Augustine: The Meditative Reader and the Text. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Stone, Gene, ed. 2011. Forks over Knives: The Plant-Based Way to Health. New York:
The Experiment, 2011.
Strauss, Sarah. Positioning Yoga: Balancing Acts across Cultures. Oxford: Berg.
Streich, Marianne. 2007. “How Hawayo Takata Practiced and Taught Reiki.” Reiki
News Magazine (Spring): 10–18.
Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers. 2005. The Impossibility of Religious Freedom. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.
———. 2009. Prison Religion: Faith-Based Reform and the Constitution. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Sutherland, Judith. 2000. “Getting to the Point: Meridian Therapy Is Making Its Way
into Nursing.” American Journal of Nursing 100.9: 40–45.
290 Bibliography

Swamiji. 2011. “Yoga & Religion.” Accessed February 3. www.sivanandaonline.org/

graphics/sadhana/Yoga/purpose.html.
Swatmarama, Swami. 2010. “Hatha Yoga.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
yogapoint.com/info/article11.htm.
Syman, Stefanie. 2010. The Subtle Body: The Story of Yoga in America. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Tan, Kevin S. Y. 2004. “Constructing a Martial Tradition: Rethinking a Popular
History of Karate-Dou.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 28.2: 169–192.
Tennant, Agnieszka. 2005. “Yes to Yoga.” Christianity Today (May 19). Accessed
February 26, 2013. www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/mayweb-only/42.0b.html.
Therapeutic-Touch.org. 2005. “Policies.” Accessed February 26, 2013. therapeutic-
touch.org/policies.
Tiwari, Subhas. 2006. “Yoga Renamed Is Still Hindu.” Hinduism Today (January/
February/March). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/
smartsection/item.php?itemid=1456.
“The TM Craze: 40 Minutes to Bliss.” 1975. Time (October 13). Accessed February 26,
2013. www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947229,00.html.
TM.org. 2012a. “Research References.” Accessed February 26. www.tm.org/popups/
studies.html.
———. 2012b. “The Technique.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.tm.org/
meditation-techniques.
———. 2012c. “10 Facts You Should Know.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
tm.org/tm-10-facts.
Torcaso v. Watkins. 1961. 367 U.S. 488.
Toufexis, Anastasia, Wendy Cole, and D. Blake Hallanan. 1995. “Is Homeopathy
Good Medicine?” Time 146.13: 4748.
Tribe, Laurence H. 1978, 1988. American Constitutional Law. Mineola, N.Y.:
Foundation.
Trinh, K., et al. 2006. “Acupuncture for Neck Disorders.” CDSR: 3.CD004870.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004870.pub3.
Trotter, Robert T., and Juan Antonio Chavira. 1997. Curanderismo: Mexican American
Folk Healing. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Truehealth.com. 2011. “Liver & Kidney Cleanse™.” Accessed February 26, 2013.
www.truehealth.com/p-7-liver-kidney-cleanse.aspx?SC=TEZ1066&s_kwci
d=TC|15010|detoxification|liver%20percent20kidney%20percent20cleans
e|liverpercent20cleansepercent20supplement|b&k_id=569p2270&k_click_
id=6b9cb7d4-ca3e-0e88-334e000038107907&utm_source=google&utm_
medium=cpc&utm_term=liver%20percent20cleansepercent20supplement&
utm_content={K_CREATIVE_HEADLINE}&utm_campaign=Detoxification&gc
lid=COiH3sWQwqsCFe4AQAodnSWDrA.
Turner, Janine, and Mary Cunningham. 2007. Christoga: Faith in Fitness (video record-
ing). Chatsworth, Calif.: Westlake Entertainment.
 Bibliography 291

Tuskegee Syphilis Study Legacy Committee. 1996. “Final Report” (May 20). Accessed
February 26, 2013. www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/medical_history/bad_blood/
report.cfm.
Tweed, Thomas A. 1992. American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844–1912, The Victorian
Culture and the Limits of Dissent. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
———. 2006. Crossing and Dwelling: A Theory of Religion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Ueshiba, Morihei. 1992. The Art of Peace: Teachings of the Founder of Aikido. Comp.
and trans. John Stevens. Boston, Mass.: Shambhala.
Ullman, Dana. 2007. The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural
Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books.
Umezawa, Rui. 1998. The Empty Hand: A Karate Wordbook. New York: Weatherhill.
United States v. Ballard. 1944. 322 U.S. 78.
United States v. Seeger. 1965. 380 U.S. 163.
Universal Awakening. 2007. “Board of Advisors.” Accessed February 26, 2013.
http://universal-awakening.org/index.php?page=bio&category=02--Board_of_
Advisors&display=458.
Valerie. 2010. “Reiki Self Attunement—Spiritual Meditation Exercise.” Accessed
February 26, 2013. www.experiencefestival.com/wp/article/reiki-self-attunement-
spiritual-meditation-exercise.
Valnet, Jean. 1990. Practice of Aromatherapy: A Classic Compendium of Plant Medicines
& Their Healing Properties. Rochester, Vt.: Healing Arts.
Van de Velde, Jane. 2009a. “Documenting Reiki Sessions.” Reiki News Magazine
(Spring): 35–37.
———. 2009b. “Writing Case Reports for Reiki.” Reiki News Magazine (Summer):
48–50.
Van Tulder, M. W., et al. 1999. “The Effectiveness of Acupuncture in the Management
of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review within the Framework
of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.” Spine 24.11: 1113–1123.
Varenne, Jean. 1976. Yoga and the Hindu Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Vasko, Rebecca. 2009. “Acupuncture in the Twenty-First Century: Where Did It Come
From and Where Is It Going.” Unpublished paper, December 13.
Veith, Ilza. 1962. “Acupuncture Therapy—Past and Present.” JAMA 180: 478–484.
———. 1975. “Sir William Osler—Acupuncturist.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin
of the New York Academy of Medicine 51.3: 393–400.
Vickers, Andrew J. 1999. “Independent Replication of Pre-clinical Research in
Homeopathy: A Systematic Review.” Forsch Komplementarmed 6.6: 311–320.
Vickers, Brian. 1984. Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Vincen-Brown, Frances. 2010. “Reiki Therapy.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
experiencefestival.com/wp/article/reiki-therapy.
292 Bibliography

Vitale, Anne. 2007. “An Integrative Review of Reiki Touch Therapy Research.”
Holistic Nursing Practice (July/August): 167–179.
Vitello, Paul. 2010. “Hindu Group Stirs a Debate over Yoga’s Soul.” New York Times
(November 27). Accessed February 26, 2013. www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/
nyregion/28yoga.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=yoga&st=cse.
Von Schacky, Clemens, and William S. Harris. 2007. “Cardiovascular Benefits of
Omega-3 Fatty Acids.” Cardiovascular Research 73.2: 310–315.
Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L., et al. 2005. “Use of Complementary and Alternative
Medical Therapies by Patients Referred to a Fibromyalgia Treatment Program at
a Tertiary Care Center.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 80.1: 55–60.
Walker, B. F., S. D. French, and S. Green. 2010. “Combined Chiropractic Interventions
for Low-back Pain.” CDSR: 4.CD005427.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD005427.pub2.
Wallis, Claudia, Janice M. Horowitz, and Elaine Lafferty. 1991. “Why New Age
Medicine Is Catching On.” Time 138.18: 46-57.
Walsh, Peter. 1992. Bioenergy: A Healing Art (video recording). Bethesda, Md.: New
World Media Alliance.
Walters, Richard. 1993. Options: The Alternative Cancer Therapy Book. Garden City
Park, N.Y.: Avery.
Wan, Catherine Y., and Gottfried Schlaug. 2010. “Music Making as a Tool for
Promoting Brain Plasticity across the Life Span.” Neuroscientist 16.5: 566–577.
Wang, Chenchen, Joseph Lau, and Jean-Paul Collet. 2004. “The Effect of Tai Chi on
Health Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review.”
Archives of Internal Medicine 164.5: 493–501.
Wang, Yong “Tai,” et al. 2004. “Effects of Tai Chi Exercise on Physical and Mental
Health of College Students.” American Journal of Chinese Medicine 32.3: 453–459.
Ward, William. 1817. A View of the History, Literature, and Mythology of the Hindoos,
3rd ed. London: Black, Parbury, & Allen.
Ward, William Reginald. 2006. Early Evangelicalism: A Global Intellectual History,
1670–1789. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Wardwell, Walter I. 1992. Chiropractic: History and Evolution of a New Profession. St.
Louis, Mo.: Mosby-Year Book.
Watson, Ian. 1998. “How Vital Is Our Force? A New Paradigm for Homeopathy.”
Resonance: The Magazine of the International Foundation for Homeopathy 20.5: 6–9.
Wayne, Peter M., et al. 2004. “Can Tai Chi Improve Vestibulopathic Postural Control?”
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 85 (January): 142–152.
Weed, Samuel. 1913. “Memorial Service: In Respect to Dr. D. D. Palmer, Discoverer
of Chiropractic, October 23, 1913, at the P.S.C.” Chiropractor 9 (December).
Weiger, Wendy A., et al. 2002. “Advising Patients Who Seek Complementary and
Alternative Medical Therapies for Cancer.” Annals of Internal Medicine 137.11:
889–903.
Weil, Andrew. 1995. Spontaneous Healing: How to Discover and Enhance Your Body’s
Natural Ability to Maintain and Heal Itself. New York: Knopf.
 Bibliography 293

Weintraub, Michael I., Mamtani Ravinder, and Marc S. Micozzi, eds. 2008.
Complementary and Integrative Medicine in Pain Management. New York: Springer.
White, Adrian, Mike Cummings, and Jacqueline Filshie. 2008. Introduction to Medical
Acupuncture. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
White, Adrian, and Edzard Ernst. 2004. “A Brief History of Acupuncture.”
Rheumatology 43.5: 662–663.
White, Craig, and Pippa Rollitt. 2009. “Judo,” 247–262. In Kordi et al. 2009.
White, Danny. 2010. “ChristJitsu: The Way of Christ.” Accessed February 26, 2013.
www.christjitsu.com.
White, David Gordon, ed. 2011. Yoga in Practice. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
White, Judith. 2013. “Christian Reiki.” Accessed February 26. www.christianreiki.
org/info/Articles/JudithWhiteArticle.htm.
White, Marjorie, and James K. Skipper, Jr. 1971. “The Chiropractic Physician: A Study
of Career Contingencies.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 12.4: 300–306.
White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy.
2002. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: White House Commission.
Whitten, Mark Weldon. 1999. The Myth of Christian America: What You Need to Know
about the Separation of Church and State. Macon, Ga.: Smyth and Helwys.
WHO. 2000. Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Geneva: WHO.
———. 2002. Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials.
Geneva: WHO.
Whorton, James C. 2002. Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Wiese, Glenda. 2000. “Chiropractic History and Trivia,” 231–246. In Chiropractic
Secrets, ed. Seth Gardner and John S. Mosby. Philadelphia: Hanley and Belfus.
Wigmore, Ann. 1975. Be Your Own Doctor: Let Living Food Be Your Medicine. New
York: Hemisphere.
Wilk v. American Medical Association. 1990. 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir.).
Williams, Debbie. 2006. Pray with Purpose, Live with Passion: How Praising God A to
Z Will Transform Your Life. West Monroe, La.: Howard.
Williams, Joseph W. 2013. Spirit Cure: A History of Pentecostal Healing. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Williams, Paul V. A. 1979. Primitive Religion and Healing: A Study of Folk Medicine in
North-East Brazil. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield.
Williamson, Lola. 2010. Transcendent in America: Hindu-Inspired Meditation
Movements as New Religion. New York: New York University Press.
Williamson, Wendy. 2002. Martial Arts the Christian Way. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Agapy.
———. 2004. Christian Martial Arts 101. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Agapy.
Willis, Evan, and Kevin White. 2004. “Evidence-based Medicine and CAM,” 57–68.
In The Mainstreaming of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Studies in Social
Context, ed. Philip Tovey, Gary Easthope, and Jon Adams. New York: Routledge.
294 Bibliography

Willis, Laurette. 2013. “Why a Christian Alternative to Yoga.” Accessed February 26.
www.praisemoves.com/christianalternative.htm.
Wilson, Mike. 2006. Christians and Cancer: A Journey of Hope. Memphis, Tenn.:
Xulon.
Wimber, John. 1987. Power Healing. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Winiarski, Douglas L. 2005. “Native American Popular Religion in New England’s
Old Colony, 1670–1770.” Religion & American Culture 15.2: 147–186.
Winstead-Fry, P., and J. Kijek. 1999. “An Integrative Review and Meta-analysis of
Therapeutic Touch Research.” Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 5.6: 58–67.
Winter, Paul. 2013. “Cancell Alternative Cancer Treatment Comparison.” Accessed
February 26. alternativecancer.us/cancell.htm.
Winterson, Jeanette. 2007. “In Defence of Homeopathy.” Guardian (November 13).
Accessed February 26, 2013. www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/nov/13/
healthandwellbeing.health.
———. 2008. “Biography.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.jeanettewinterson.
com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=207.
Wirth, Daniel P. 1990. “The Effect of Non-contact Therapeutic Touch on the Healing
Rate of Full Thickness Dermal Wounds.” Subtle Energies 1.1: 1–20.
Wirth, Daniel P., et al. 1993. “Full Thickness Dermal Wounds Treated with Non-
contact Therapeutic Touch: A Replication and Extension.” Complementary
Therapies in Medicine 1: 127–132.
Wolf, Ava, and Janet Wing. 2013. “How We Got Reiki into the Hospital.” Accessed
February 26. www.centerforreikiresearch.org/Articles_HowWeGot.aspx.
Woo, Elaine Woo. 2008. “Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Founded Transcendental Meditation
Movement.” Los Angeles Times (February 6). Accessed February 25, 2013. www.lat-
imes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-maharishi6feb06,1,4208394.story.
Woodard, Stephanie. 2011. “Get Up, Stand Up.” Yoga Journal (March 1): 22.
Woods, Diana Lynn, Ruth F. Craven, and Joie Whitney. 2005. “The Effect of
Therapeutic Touch on Behavioral Symptoms of Persons with Dementia.”
Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine 11.1: 66–74.
World Medical Association. 1981. Declaration of Lisbon on the Rights of the Patient.
Lisbon: World Medical Assembly.
Worthington, Vivian. 1982. A History of Yoga. London: Billing.
Worwood, Valerie Ann. 1999. Aromatherapy for the Soul. Novato, Calif.: New World
Library.
Wuthnow, Robert. 1976. The Consciousness Reformation. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
———. 1998. After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
———. 2007. After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty- and Thirty-somethings Are Shaping
the Future of American Religion. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
 Bibliography 295

Wuthnow, Sarah. 1997. “Healing Touch Controversies.” Journal of Religion and

Health 36.3: 221–229.
Wyman, Scott. 2013a. “Christian Minister Uses Reiki.” Accessed February 26. www.
christianreiki.org/info/NunsPriestsMinisters/ChrisitanMinister.htm.
———. 2013b. “Working with Wisdom & Compassion.” Accessed February 26.
www.scottwyman.com/Scott_Wyman/Integrating.html.
Yamada, Keiji, and Kokusai Nihon Bunka Kenkyū Sentā. 1998. The Origins of
Acupuncture, Moxibustion, and Decoction: The Two Phases of the Formation of
Ancient Medicine. Kyoto, Japan: International Research Center for Japanese
Studies.
Yamaguchi, Tadao. 2007. Light on the Origins of Reiki: A Handbook for Practicing the
Original Reiki of Usui and Hayashi. Twin Lakes, Wis.: Lotus.
Yamasaki, Taikō. 1988. Shingon: Japanese Esoteric Buddhism. Trans. Richard Peterson
and Cynthia Peterson. Ed. Yasuyoshi Morimoto and David Kidd. Boston:
Shambhala.
Yeh, Gloria. 2004. “Effects of Tai Chi Mind-Body Movement Therapy on Functional
Status and Exercise Capacity in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure:
A Randomized Controlled Trial.” American Journal of Medicine 117 (October 15):
541–548.
———. 2008. “The Effect of Tai Chi Exercise on Blood Pressure: A Systematic
Review.” Preventive Cardiology (Spring): 82–89.
Yin Yang House. 2013. “HT 7 Acupuncture Point—Shen Men—Heart Meridian.”
Accessed February 26. www.yinyanghouse.com/acupuncturepoints/ht7.
Yip, P., et al. 2009. “Non-pharmacological Interventions for Assisting the Induction
of Anaesthesia in Children.” CDSR: 3.CD006447.DOI:10.1002/14651858.
CD006447.pub2.
YogaEd.com. 2011. “Yoga Ed. in Action.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.yogaed.
com/action.html.
Yogananda, Paramhansa. 1946. Autobiography of a Yogi. Los Angeles: Self-Realization
Fellowship.
———. 1993. “Yoga: The Science of Religion.” Self-Realization 64.2 (Spring): 9.
Youngblood, Lloyd. 2012. “Dowsing History.” Accessed February 26, 2013. www.
dowsers.org/dowsing/about-asd/history-of-dowsing.
Zaidman, Nurit, Ofra Goldstein-Gidoni, and Iris Nehemya. 2009. “From Temples
to Organizations: The Introduction and Packaging of Spirituality.” Organization
16.4: 597–621.
Zang Fool. 2009. “Evangelical Community Acupuncture” (May 17). Accessed February 26,
2013. www.pocacoop.com/prick-prod-provoke/post/evangelical-community-acupuncture.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. 2002. 536 U.S. 639.
Zhu, X., K. D. Hamilton, and E. D. McNicol. 2011. “Acupuncture for Pain in
Endometriosis.” CDSR: 9.CD007864.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007864.pub2.
Zurcher, Erik. 1959. The Buddhist Conquest of China. Leiden: Brill.
This page intentionally left blank
 Index
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 129
Accreditation Commission for
Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine,
171
Acuguy, 207
acupoints: acupressure, 74;
acupuncture, 142, 151, 152, 206, 208;
defined, 141, 147, 205; moxibustion,
36, 151
acupressure, 141; Christian critiques of,
75, 104; Christian use of, 74, 79–80;
defined, 141; scientific language, 205;
studies, 150; with other CAM, 30, 98,
104
acupuncture, 2, 20, 139–154;
ancient, 141, 144; banned, 142;
chiropractic, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101;
Christian critiques of, 11, 73–74,
91, 102, 109, 140, 207–208, 212;
Christian use of, 68, 69, 85, 86,
88, 109, 139–140, 160, 207–208,
211, 214; electroacupuncture, 32,
146, 150; government funding,
225; history, 141–144; Introduction
to Medical Acupuncture, 147;
medical, 140, 143–148, 154, 175,
205–206; placebo, 151, 152, 153,
154; professionalized, 171; qi
theory, 141–142, 144–145, 154, 163,
206; safety, 153; science, 141–142;
sham, 116–117, 149–150, 152–153;
spiritual, 206; studies, 12, 13,
116–117, 131, 145, 148–153; Taoism
and, 141, 142, 154, 206, 207; usage,
11, 12–13, 143; with other CAM, 30,
32, 33, 35, 54, 218
Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
Alliance, 145
Adams, Arlin, 221
addiction, 150, 151, 152, 153, 186, 225
ADHD, 114, 119, 150
Africa, 7; South Africa, 3, 78
African-Americans, 7, 14, 15, 93, 176
Agency for Healthcare and Research
Quality, 114–115
agnostics, 94, 189
Aicher-Swartz, Marita, 157, 214
AIDS/HIV, 32, 116, 124, 126
Alandydy, Patricia, 195
Albanese, Catherine, 107
alchemy, 28, 36
allergies, 130
Alternative Healing: The Complete A-Z
Guide, 120
Alternative Medicine: The Christian
Handbook, 74, 75
Alternative Medicine: Expanding Medical
Horizons, 147, 206
Alternative Medicine Sourcebook, 147
Alves, Sister Marta, 57
298
American Academy of Medical
Acupuncture, 145, 171
American Association of Acupuncture
and Oriental Medicine, 171
American Cancer Society, 129, 131, 132,
170
American Chiropractic Association, 96,
97, 99, 101
American College of Sports Medicine,
62, 63
American Holistic Medical Association,
145
American Holistic Nurses Association,
115, 197, 198, 209
American Hospital Association, 174,
194, 201
American Journal of Nursing, 191
American Medical Association, 9, 12
American Nurses Association, 197
American Psychiatric Association, 134
American Psychological Association, 12
American Yoga Association, 52, 53,
175
Anderson, Neil, 70
angels, 31, 71, 78, 185, 186, 192, 196
animal magnetism, 4, 29, 93. See also
energy, vital; mesmerism
anjalimudra (praying hands), 54, 88
Ankerberg, John, 104
Annals of Internal Medicine, 131, 148
anthroposophy, 32
anxiety. See under emotions
applied kinesiology, 32, 101, 104, 160
aromatherapy, 54, 160, 210, 218;
Aromatherapy, 122; Aromatherapy for
Health Professionals, 122; Complete
Aromatherapy Handbook, 33;
essential oils, 33, 122–123; Practice of
Aromatherapy, 122
arthritis, 124, 125, 127, 149, 151, 153,
175
Arumugaswami, Sannyasin, 215–216
In d e x
asanas, 46–48, 49, 50–51, 54, 55, 60,
62, 64, 174, 215, 226; corpse, 54;
downward-facing dog, 54; eagle, 51;
Sun Salutation, 48, 51, 53, 60, 62, 63;
tree, 54. See also yoga
Asia, 1, 10, 19, 22, 25, 70, 144; China,
25, 27, 35–37, 140–144, 154; India,
37, 40, 42, 46–49, 50, 52, 56, 59, 170,
180–181, 227; Japan, 11, 25, 26–27,
36, 88, 142, 144, 158, 180–181, 213;
South Asia, 40, 45, 46–48; Tibet, 180,
191
Asian-Americans, 176
Association for Applied
Psychophysiology and Biofeedback,
42, 43
Association for Mindfulness in
Education, 172–173
Association of Accredited Naturopathic
Medical Colleges, 33
Association of Chiropractic Colleges, 96
Association of Transpersonal
Psychology, 42
Association of Vineyard Churches, 76
asthma, 98, 119, 125, 130, 148, 150, 151
astrology, 7, 8, 28, 32, 35, 37, 57, 178,
218
atheism, 2, 68, 94, 159, 189, 207,
238n22
Atman, 40, 47, 59
aura, 32, 37, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189,
195, 199, 214; Christian critiques of,
75; in Kirlian photography, 5; layers,
126, 189, 192
autism, 150
Ayurveda, 13, 42, 78, 99, 191, 225
Backos, Marcia, 179
Bad Science, 131–131
Baldwin, Anne Linda, 115
Bartleson, J. D., 153
Beals, Brandon, 87
 Index
Beauchamp, Tom, 201
beliefs, 22, 220, 221; changed by
practices, 17, 19, 21, 44, 57, 173,
204, 212–217, 218–219, 224, 228;
conflicts with monotheistic, 201–202,
203–204, 205, 207, 208, 211, 212, 216,
228; disavowing religious, 25, 39, 52,
54, 173, 189, 192, 195; fear of false,
19, 73, 74, 75, 77, 89; pluralistic, 17,
31, 43, 180; Protestant emphasis on,
14, 16, 65, 67, 80, 103, 110. See also
practices; religion; worldviews
Bell’s palsy, 150, 151
Belmont Principles, 202
Benedict XVI (pope), 11
Benveniste, Jacques, 117–118
Bernard, Theos, 55
Bhagavad Gita, 46–47, 49
Bharati, Swami Jnaneshvara, 55
Bible: added to CAM, 46, 60, 62, 63,
64, 81, 88, 110, 160; authenticates
CAM, 34–35, 77, 78, 79, 91, 104,
139–140, 158, 163, 179, 192; CAM
not rooted in, 71–75; CAM replaces,
30, 94; CAM rooted in, 81–86, 103;
meditation, 38, 46, 62; other gods in,
15, 74, 79, 82–83, 84, 163; Protestant
emphasis on, 14, 23, 56, 67–69, 76,
101, 102, 162, 203–204, 208, 218,
219–220; in schools, 221–224
Biblical Discernment Ministries, 86
Biblical Guide to Alternative Medicine, 70,
74, 105
biofeedback, 42–43; Beyond Biofeedback,
42; Bioenergy, 42; Biofeedback,
42; Buddhist, 42, 43; Christian
critiques of, 11; Christian use of,
212; chiropractic, 100; in hospitals,
175; Ozawkie Book of the Dead, 42;
professionalized, 171; safety, 135;
studies, 114; Taoist, 43; usage, 13. See
also meditation
299
Biofeedback Certification International
Alliance, 171
Biofeedback Research Society, 42
biomedicine, 3, 164; allopathic, 30, 79,
92, 120, 164; CAM integrated with,
2, 7, 12, 20–21, 92, 112, 174, 193,
199, 205; CAM critiques of, 33, 93,
95, 96, 98–99; Christian critiques
of, 89, 102, 103, 109, 159, 207, 212;
conventional, 3, 8, 9, 29, 112; costs,
11; disillusionment with, 7, 8, 10, 11,
86, 140–141, 144, 160–162, 164–165,
216; evidence-based, 112, 113, 137,
148, 226; heroic, 8, 156; history,
7–10, 11–12, 141–143; irregular,
9, 10, 12; mainstream, 7, 10, 44;
professionalized, 10; quackery and,
2, 9, 12, 97, 105–106, 131–132; side
effects, 20, 113, 124, 149, 160. See
also drugs; science; scientific studies;
techniques
Birch, Beryl Bender, 214
Black, Hugo, 222
Bland, Martin, 118
Blavatsky, Helena, 48, 49
bliss, 41, 47, 50, 134
blood: flow, 146, 147, 206; transfusions,
161, 203–204
Bob Jones University, 87
body: asceticism, 41, 46–47, 60, 156,
180–181; biomedical view of, 10;
God-given, 85–86; inferior to spirit,
44, 156; in meditation, 39; out of, 48,
54, 185; self-healing, 33, 96–97, 100,
170, 195, 206; sensations spiritual,
5, 11, 126, 145, 182, 187–188, 193;
spiritual, 32, 33, 36, 78, 141–142, 159;
spiritual reasons for manipulating, 4,
24, 29, 94, 158; unauthorized touch
of, 201, 203, 204, 210, 211. See also
body-mind-spirit; hands; meditation:
sitting; pain; practices; suffering
300 In d e x
Body & Soul, 171
body-mind-spirit, 1, 3, 4, 7, 29, 58, 74,
157, 171, 176, 177, 187, 195, 197, 208.
See also mind-body therapies
Boon, Brooke, 45–46, 61, 65
Bopp, H. J., 72
Bordenkircher, Susan, 61
Boyajian, George, 104
Brahman, 40, 46, 49, 174
brain, 7, 42, 47, 49, 86, 94, 127, 133,
147, 150. See also mind
breath: deep, 12–13; God’s, 83, 103, 189;
Holy Spirit, 61–62, 88, 158; mindful,
39; spiritual energy directed by, 6,
35, 36, 47, 50, 69, 188, 213. See also
energy, vital; prana; qi
Breath & Body, 61
British Medical Association, 201
British Medical Journal, 133
Brown, Barbara, 42
Bryner, Peter, 96
Buddhism, 1, 19, 22, 43, 155; CAM
and, 28, 42, 47, 51, 57, 72, 81, 207,
213; Christian critiques of, 11, 16,
71, 72, 81, 86, 139–140; Christian
use of, 88, 157–158, 211; eightfold
path, 37; energy medicine and,
21, 180–181, 185–189, 191–192,
199; four noble truths, 37, 39;
initiation in, 157, 158, 181, 184, 185;
Mahayana, 158; meditation and, 7,
10, 25, 37–40, 42, 57, 71, 88, 115,
134, 158, 209, 211; religion and,
24, 26, 27, 35, 40, 189, 213, 221;
science and, 25, 26, 49; Vipassana,
42; Zen, 10–11, 25–26, 36, 49, 57,
115, 139, 158, 174, 180, 213. See also
enlightenment; religion
Buddhist Insight Meditation Society,
134
Burgess, Michael, 208
Burkett, Larry, 161–162
businesses, 2, 39, 172, 173, 209
Byrne, Rhonda, 101
California Cancer Commission, 132
Calvin, John, 8
Campbell, T. Colin, 129
Campbell, Thomas M., 129
Campus Crusade for Christ, 87
cancer: breast, 39, 129, 131, 160, 162–
163; colon, 83, 108; fear of, 160–161,
163, 166–169; kidney, 161; prostate,
116, 131. See also cancer treatments;
detoxification; nutrition; nutritional
supplements
Cancer Nutrition Centers of America,
166
Cancer Prevention Diet (Kushi), 36–37
cancer treatments, 2, 13; acupuncture,
147–149; conventional, 33, 124, 131,
149, 160–162; Essiac/Flor Essence,
34, 131, 132, 161; Iscador/mistletoe,
34, 131; Laetrile/amygdalin, 131,
132; meditation, 39, 126; Protocel/
Entelev/Cancell/Cantron, 34, 131;
reflexology, 160; shark cartilage, 131;
yoga, 124–125. See also detoxification;
nutrition; nutritional supplements
Cantwell, Mike, 115
Can You Trust Your Doctor?, 104
Care Through Touch, 78
Carol, John, 207
carpal tunnel syndrome, 127, 130, 149
Carter, Brian, 135, 139–140, 211
Catalfo, Phil, 52–53, 215
Catholics: Benedictine, 59, 158;
born-again, 14; Buddhism and, 11,
25–26, 158–159; CAM critiques by,
11, 23, 75, 57; CAM use by, 59–60,
86, 157, 196, 214, 216; Charismatic,
10; Christian Reflection on the New
Age (Vatican), 11; Declaration
on the Relation of the Church to
 Index
Non-Christian Religions (Vatican), 10;
Franciscan, 196, 210; government
and, 221, 222, 223, 224; Jesuit, 11, 25,
144, 158; miracles and, 8; Trappist,
158; U. S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine,
11, 75
celebrities: Beatles, 41, 50; Ben & Jerry,
40; Blair, Tony, 165; Chan, Jackie,
176; Charles, Prince of Wales,
165; Clinton, Bill, 165; Elizabeth
II (queen), 165; Garbo, Greta, 50;
George VI (king), 165; Gregory
XVI (pope), 165; Griffin, Merv, 41;
Lee, Bruce, 176; MacLaine, Shirley,
41; Madonna, 51; Namath, Joe, 41;
Norris, Chuck, 176; Reagan, Nancy,
178; Ryan, Robert, 50; Twain, Mark,
165
Center for Healing Touch and Wellness,
198
Center for Mindfulness in Medicine,
Health Care, and Society, 38, 114
Center for Reiki Research Including
Reiki in Hospitals, 115, 194–195
Chadwick, Jonathan, 88
chakras (cakras): Christian use of,
45, 196; defined, 4, 6, 36, 47, 189;
scientific language, 49, 126, 199;
spiritual energy labeled, 50, 52, 58,
182, 184, 185, 187–188, 191, 193
Champions for Christ, 87
Chang San-feng, 36
Chapman-Smith, David, 95, 100
Charlish, Anne, 136, 184, 188, 213
Cheng Man-ch’ing, 36
Chen, Michael, 77–78
Chen Wang-ting, 36
Cherry, Reginald, 219
chi (ji), 69
ch’i (qi). See qi
China Study, 129
301
chiropractic, 1, 2, 9, 19–20, 91–111;
adjustment, 93, 94, 96, 98, 102,
104, 105–106, 109, 110, 171, 208;
biomedicine and, 12, 92, 95,
98–99, 102, 103, 106–107, 175, 205;
Chiropractic Choice, 100; Chiropractic
Profession, 95; Chiropractor’s Adjuster
(D. D. Palmer), 93; Christian
critiques of, 11, 71, 102, 104–105,
211; Christianity renounced by, 92,
95, 102; Christian use of, 89, 91–93,
102–109, 159, 160; Do Chiropractors
Pray? (B. J. Palmer), 94; government
funding, 224; harmonial, 29, 95–101,
105; How Chiropractors Think and
Practice, 98; informed consent, 133,
208, 211; Innate Intelligence, 4, 35,
93–105, 208, 212; mechanical, 95–96,
98, 100; metaphysical, 29, 92–95,
97–99, 101, 104, 110; mixers, 95–96,
98; osteopathy and, 29–30; Palmer
philosophy, 95, 96, 97, 98–100, 104,
105; Philosophy of Chiropractic, 97;
professionalized, 171; religion and,
93–95, 96, 102, 110, 208, 237n5;
safety, 133; scientific language, 92,
95–97, 98, 99, 106, 110, 171, 208;
straights, 95–96, 98, 99; studies, 12,
106, 130, 151; subluxation, 94, 95, 97,
98, 101; usage, 12–13, 92
Chopra, Deepak, 101, 225
Choudhury, Bikram, 52
Christ Centered Yoga, 60, 62
ChristianAcupuncture.com, 139
Christian America, 14–16
Christian Chiropractors Association,
102–103, 104, 106
Christianity Today, 56, 65, 74, 75, 86
Christian Martial Arts Network, 77, 80,
84
thechristianmeditator.com, 87
ChristianReiki.org, 78, 179, 195
302 In de x
Christian Research Institute, 69, 80
Christians, 1, 3, 10–11, 13–16,
43–44, 67–90, 155–159. See also
Catholics; evangelicals; pentecostals;
Protestants
Christians and Cancer, 163
Christian Science, 9, 48, 93, 102, 108,
159
ChristJitsu, 84
Christoga, 60, 62; Christoga, 59
chronic illness, 116, 124, 126, 175
Chuster, Judy, 87, 157
civil rights movement, 10, 201
Clarksville Mixed Martial Arts Academy,
87
Clark, Thomas, 222
class, social, 13, 26, 29, 48, 197. See also
power; race/ethnicity
clergy: CAM critiqued by, 2, 8; CAM
endorsed by, 103–104, 109, 159;
courted as CAM allies, 102; divine
healing discounted by, 8, 110, 155,
156, 157; individual, 9, 83, 88, 93,
103, 104, 156
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
(CDSR), 113, 117; acupuncture, 148–
151; aromatherapy, 122; biofeedback,
114; chiropractic, 130; cranberries,
130; homeopathy, 119; Laetrile,
132; massage, 130; meditation, 114;
mistletoe/Iscador, 131; Saint-John’s-
wort, 130, 131; t’ai chi, 127–128; yoga,
114. See also systematic reviews
cognitive dissonance, 17
Cohen, Michael, 209
colic, infantile, 130
color therapy, 35, 183, 193
commercialization: detrimental, 219;
fear used in, 166–169; government
funding, 225; of health care, 11–12;
insurance and, 175, 178; profit
motives and, 48, 55, 83, 161, 194;
profits from, 31, 34, 42, 45, 51–52,
122, 143, 163, 164–165, 166–169, 178,
197; secularity implied by, 41, 170,
172, 178, 189–190, 198; value implied
by, 52, 190
common cold, 1, 120
compassion, 26, 28, 40, 193, 195
Complementary and Alternative
Medical Research Center (University
of Michigan), 225
Complementary and Alternative Therapies
Research, 12
Complementary and Integrative
Medicine Program (Mayo Clinic), 145
Confucianism, 27, 31, 35, 72, 140
consciousness: in all matter, 7, 186,
191; transforming, 172, 173, 181;
universal (divine), 40, 41, 42–43, 50,
53, 198
conspiracy theories, 162, 169–170
Constitution, 15, 220; coercion test, 17,
202, 216, 222, 223, 224; endorsement
test, 223; First Amendment, 200,
220, 221, 222; free exercise, 54, 220,
221; Fourteenth Amendment, 222;
incorporation, 222; Lemon test, 223;
religious equality, 18, 21, 200, 222,
224, 226; religious establishment, 12,
18, 19, 21, 171, 172, 173, 174, 200,
220–227, 229; religious voluntarism,
18, 21, 200, 222, 224. See also court
cases; government; schools; Supreme
Court
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
133
consumers: demand by, 11, 164–165,
175, 177; pragmatic, 17, 218–219,
220; responsibilities of, 19, 202,
217–220, 229; rights of, 19, 21, 201,
202, 205, 209, 218, 227. See also
decision making; informed consent;
tort law
 Index
continuing education unit (CEU), 145,
195, 197, 198
correspondence, 4, 28, 32, 170–171
Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and
Oriental Medicine, 171
counterculture, 10, 50
court cases: Agostini v. Felton, 224;
Canterbury v. Spence, 203; Dent v.
West Virginia, 9; Edwards v. Aguillard,
223; Employment Division v. Smith,
221; Engel v. Vitale, 222, 223; Everson
v. Board of Education, 222, 224; Lee v.
Weisman, 223; Lemon v. Kurtzman,
223; Lynch v. Donnelly, 223; Malette
v. Shulman, 203; Malnak v. Yogi,
172, 221, 225; Mitchell v. Helms,
224; Natanson v. Kline, 203; Salgo v.
Leland Stanford Jr. University, 201;
Santa Fe Independent School District
v. Doe, 223; Schloendorff v. Society of
New York Hospitals, 203; Schnellmann
v. Roettger, 216; School District of
Abington Township v. Schempp,
222; Torcaso v. Watkins, 221; United
States v. Ballard, 217; United States v.
Seeger, 221; Wilk v. American Medical
Association, 12; Zelman v. Simmons-
Harris, 224. See also Constitution;
Supreme Court
Covington, Daryl, 80–81, 87
Cox, Harvey, 44
crystals: Christian critiques of, 11, 75,
89; usage, 126, 168, 183, 186, 187,
197, 198
Cullis, Charles, 159
Culpepper, Emily, 176
Cushman, Anne, 215
Dager, Albert, 74
Dalai Lama, 7, 89
Dankmeyer, Todd, 165
Daoism. See Taoism
303
Dao of Chinese Medicine, 140, 144
Darwin, Charles, 9, 25
Davenas, Elisabeth, 118
David Lynch Foundation, 172
Davis, Devra, 169–170
Death of Satan, 73
deception. See under informed consent
decision making: autonomous, 17, 201,
217, 219, 228; freedom of choice
in, 3, 19, 200, 205; informed, 17,
18, 21, 200, 202, 203, 208, 219–220,
229; intentionality in, 201, 202, 219;
shared, 201. See also consumers;
informed consent
Declaration of Lisbon, 201
Deep South Alliance of Fitness
Professionals, 61
Deists, 15, 31
Delbanco, Andrew, 73
dementia, 114, 119, 122, 123, 150
demons, 31, 71–72, 75, 85, 196
DeNaro, Anthony D., 134
Denison, Virginia, 50
depression. See under emotions
Descartes, René, 23, 49
Desmond, Deborah, 54
detoxification, 162; Aqua Detox/foot
baths, 101, 131–132, 163; coffee
enemas/colonic irrigation, 34, 129,
132, 160, 163; commercialized, 166–
169; dowsing/electromedicine, 32,
72, 79, 168; dry brushing, 160; energy
medicine, 136, 185, 199; shatkarmas
(stomach cloth), 47. See also cancer
therapies; modernity; nutritional
supplements: cleanse
Devi, Indra, 50
diabetes, 128
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), 134
Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, 129
diets. See nutrition
304 In de x
digestive problems, 148, 150
DigiBio, 118–119
Dillon, Stephanie, 65
discernment ministries, 58, 69, 71, 80,
86, 88, 104, 105, 220
disease, 3; causes, 4, 30, 94–95, 112,
156–157, 166; dis-ease, 4, 97–98, 110;
prevention, 28
distant healing, 6, 32, 168, 183–184, 186
divination, 15, 71, 72, 73, 79, 168, 192
divine. See God; universe
divine healing, 9, 18, 71, 107–108,
135, 156, 159, 212–213; anointing
for, 157, 162; miracles of, 8, 14,
15, 107, 108, 156, 161–162, 181.
See also Protestants: cessationist;
pentecostals; prayer
Divine Life Society, 53
dizziness, 130, 132
Dobson, James, 140
Donahue, John, 27
Donahue, Joseph, 97, 208
Donner, Fritz, 117
Don-Wauchope, Sallee, 78
Douglas, William, 222, 223
Dr. Oz Show, 218
drugs: CAM preferred to, 11, 86, 116;
side effects, 11, 33, 120, 122, 153,
164, 195. See also biomedicine
dualism. See under worldviews
Dumoulin, Heinrich, 158
D’Youville Nursing Center, 225
dysmenorrhea. See under pain
Eastern religions: Christians guard
against, 14, 58, 77, 89–90; defined,
68; fear of investigating, 19, 46, 68,
70, 74, 89; labels CAM as illegitimate,
2, 45, 59, 69, 72, 76, 91, 104; less
threatening than term Hindu, 55, 56,
80, 105, 162, 179, 211; positive views
of, 174, 206, 215; romanticized, 56,
226; science as opposite of, 19. See
also Asia; New Age
Eck, Diana, 221
efficacy, 20, 112–138; ancientness
and, 20, 141, 144–145, 154; and
asking why, 88, 90, 109, 113, 137,
140; assessing, 117, 124; implying,
124–128; quality of life, 127, 128,
131; rationalizing lack of, 124, 153;
religious legitimacy inferred from,
20, 22, 68, 69, 75, 86, 105–106, 108,
110–111, 212, 228. See also safety;
scientific studies
Einstein, Albert, 6
Eisenberg, David, 217
electricity, 5, 6, 96, 105, 147
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 49
Emerson, William, 48–49
emotions, 3, 137; anxiety, 75, 79, 114,
124, 125, 126, 133, 151, 195, 209;
depression, 125, 126, 130, 133,
134, 150, 175; fear, 3, 99, 122, 137,
168–169, 205; healing of, 12, 43, 100,
126, 165–165, 186, 209; hope, 8, 24,
82, 110, 131, 137, 161, 163, 165, 185,
227. See also religion
empiricism. See under science
energy, vital : balance, 4–5, 30, 35–36,
43, 51, 128, 135, 142, 144, 154, 175,
185, 190, 193, 205–206; blockages,
4, 29, 35, 43, 110, 145, 154, 183, 193;
channeling, 89, 185, 186, 187–188,
189, 192, 195; cosmic, 32, 33, 100,
174, 189; defined, 4, 9, 28, 113;
divine, 54, 78; fields, 4, 5, 6, 29, 33,
34, 42, 71, 78, 122–123, 157, 176,
191–193, 195, 197, 198, 210; flows,
4, 29, 35–36, 58, 78, 126, 128, 142,
146, 154, 181, 184, 185, 188, 191–192,
197, 205–206; frequencies, 33, 34,
45, 99, 163, 169, 199; life-force, 28,
34, 77, 78, 83, 95, 156, 162–163,
 Index
182, 189, 191; magnetic, 29, 32, 120,
147, 160, 168, 169; matter and, 4,
6–7, 30, 93–94, 97; moon, 28, 32, 47;
patterns, 6, 32, 185; safety, 135–136,
166; scientific language, 110; sexual,
47, 50, 187–188, 191; spiritual, 4–5,
28, 32, 33, 54, 71, 75, 100, 160, 191
(see also power: spiritual); subtle/
putative, 5, 6, 35, 42, 126, 192; sun,
28, 47, 48, 53–54, 83; suprahuman,
22, 220; transfer, 33, 34, 83, 136, 181,
192, 193; universal, 76, 78, 180, 184,
185, 186, 188, 198, 206; veritable/
physical and, 5, 6, 126; vibrations, 5,
6, 28, 33, 34, 37, 45, 94, 99, 169, 185,
195, 199; vortexes, 47, 168, 189, 190.
See also animal magnetism; chakras;
electricity; Innate Intelligence; ki;
kundalini; meridians; nadis; prana;
qi; vital force; yin-yang
energy medicine, 21, 124, 175, 179–199;
Christian critiques of, 91; Christian
use of, 78, 196; with other CAM, 100,
101, 218. See also Healing Touch,
massage, Reiki, Therapeutic Touch
Enlightenment, 8, 68
enlightenment (awakening), 37, 40,
45, 50, 51, 158, 174, 185, 186, 187,
215–216; Buddhist, 37, 158, 185,
186, 187; meditation for, 40, 43; yoga
for, 45, 50, 51, 174, 215, 216. See also
salvation
Enomiya-Lassalle, Hugo, 158
epilepsy, 114, 150
Epperly, Bruce, 78, 182, 210
Epperly, Katherine, 78, 182, 210
ethics, 200; abuse, 202, 209; biomedical,
18, 21, 202, 203; CAM, 27, 28,
165, 198; conflicts of interest,
169–170; fiduciary responsibility,
209; manipulation, 17, 21, 201,
204; personal autonomy, 18, 21,
305
200, 201, 204, 209, 219; physician-
patient relationship, 204–205, 209,
217; religion and, 201–202, 208;
self-determination, 18, 21, 200,
201, 203, 204, 219, 228; therapeutic
misconception, 209; truth in
advertising, 216. See also informed
consent; vulnerable populations
Ethics of Consent, 201
Europe, 1, 7, 22, 28, 34, 48, 141, 143;
France, 117, 122, 131; Germany,
30–31, 34, 55, 70, 117, 131, 158, 202;
Great Britain, 48, 81, 131, 133, 144,
165, 201, 213; Ireland, 11, 158; Italy,
144, 161; Switzerland, 72
evangelicals, 1; container-contents
language of, 77, 80, 90; defined, 14;
experience emphasis of, 65; fear of
investigating non-Christian religions
by, 19, 46, 56, 58, 68–69, 70, 74, 89;
fruits standard of, 19, 69–70, 75–76,
86–88, 106, 212; language emphasis
of, 60–65, 77–78, 79–80, 90, 106;
legitimacy emphasis of, 68–70, 71,
77, 79, 89, 91, 92, 93, 102, 104–105,
108, 110, 211, 212; metaphysics and,
44, 92–93, 107, 227–228, 234n44;
popular culture and, 14, 76–77;
purity emphasis of, 14, 16, 44, 202;
reasoning by, 67, 68, 207–208; roots
standard of, 19, 45, 57, 69–75, 81–86,
91, 105, 180, 207, 211. See also beliefs;
Bible; pentecostals; pluralism;
practices; Protestants; and specific
health-care practices
EvenBetterNow Natural Health
Solutions, 166
Every Body Has Parasites, 167
evidence-based medicine. See under
biomedicine
exercise: Christian use of, 56, 57, 58, 62,
77; not religion, 46, 50, 52, 77,
306
exercise(Cont.)
214; religion and, 48, 52–56, 58, 175;
studies, 127–128, 130, 131, 152, 226;
with CAM, 48, 98
Fackerell, Michael, 162
Faden, Ruth, 201
fatigue, 136, 146
FDA (Food and Drug Administration),
113, 122, 131, 132, 135
fear. See under emotions
Federal Acupuncture Coverage Act of
2011, 225
Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program, 225
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
of 1938, 113, 224
Federal Trade Commission, 217
Fénelon, 38
fibromyalgia, 107, 116, 145
Finch, Mary Ann, 78
Fink, Matt, 175
First Amendment. See under
Constitution
fitness centers. See gyms
Flexner, Abraham, 9
Focus on the Family, 69, 84, 140
Folan, Lilias, 51
folk healing, 7, 8, 34
Forks over Knives, 129
Frähm, Anne, 160–161
Frähm, Dave, 160–161
fraud. See under informed consent
Freemasonry, 15, 31, 32, 92, 191
Frohock, Fred, 227
Garrison, Nancy, 115
gassho (praying hands), 88, 182
Gattefosse, Rene-Maurice, 122
Gautama, Siddhartha, 37
gender: women in CAM and, 13,
48, 182; intimacy and, 165–166;
In de x
masculinity and, 52, 87, 176–177. See
also Goddess; power
Gerson, Charlotte, 34
Gerson Institute, 34
Gerson, Max, 34
Gillespie, Elena, 225
Gillett, Kerry, 169
Gilligan, Peter, 145
Giri, Swami Gitananda, 133
Gladstar, Rosemary, 28
globalization, 48
God: experiential knowledge of, 49,
53, 87, 100, 158–159; one with, 40,
41, 43, 45, 46–47, 52, 53, 57, 59, 78,
174, 186, 198; personal, 44, 107, 201;
power of, 77–78, 157; relationship
with, 46, 60, 81, 87, 160. See also self;
universe; worship
Goddess, 185–187, 188, 189, 196;
goddesses, 41, 47, 54
Godly Love, 212–213
Goldacre, Ben, 131–132
Gordon, Ruth, 104
Gotquestions.org, 58, 69, 88, 220
government: Congress, 11, 29, 218, 220,
225; Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, 119; Department of
Defense, 225; Department of Health
and Human Services Division of
Nursing, 225; endorsement, 200;
funding, 12, 21, 118, 171, 200, 224,
225; religion and, 18, 21. See also
Constitution; Supreme Court; specific
agencies
Graham, Sylvester, 9
Gram, Hans Burch, 32
Green, Alyce, 42, 135–136
Green, Elmer, 42, 135–136
Greene, Daryl, 156
Grof, Christina, 133
Grof, Stanislov, 133
Groothius, Douglas, 58
 Index
Guber, Peter, 173
Guber, Tara, 173, 223–224
guided imagery, 26, 100, 161
Guyon, Madame, 38
gymnastics, 48
gyms, 52, 155, 175–176, 214
gynecological problems, 148, 150
Habito, Ruben, 25
Hahnemann, Samuel, 30, 31, 70, 79,
93, 117
halo effect, 137, 178, 228
hands: in battery, 211; laying on of,
71, 85, 157, 179, 192, 210; praying,
53–54, 64, 88, 182, 185; spiritual
energy redirected by, 4, 29, 54, 71,
78, 93, 126, 182–183, 184, 187–188,
193; therapeutic, 110, 165–166. See
also body
Hannon, Robin Littlefeather, 78, 157
Harkin, Tom, 225
Harp, David, 40
Hatch, Orrin, 225
hatha yoga. See under yoga
Hayashi, Chujiro, 181
headaches. See under pain
Healing at Any Price?, 72
Healing from the Heart, 78, 87
Healing Sciences International, 124
Healing Touch, 21, 78, 80, 87, 179,
198–199; Healing Touch Level One
Notebook, 198
Healing Touch Certification Board, 198
HealthQuarters Lodge, 160–161
heart disease, 115, 124, 125, 126, 127,
128, 130, 148, 160, 161, 175
Helms, Joseph, 116, 145, 148
Henrichsen-Schrembs, Sabine, 215
Herbal Healing Secrets of the Orient, 146
herbalism: Christian critiques of, 11;
Christian use of, 109, 160, 162–163,
167, 212; defined, 27–28; gender and,
307
196; moxibustion and, 36, 151; safety,
135; Taoism and, 25, 35; usage,
8, 120; with other CAM, 54, 98,
100–101. See also herbs; plants
herbs: distinguished from herbalism,
13, 27–28; safety, 135, 164; studies,
12, 150, 151; usage, 143, 164. See also
herbalism; nutritional supplements
Hindu American Foundation, 53, 215
Hinduism, 1, 19, 22, 43, 155; Advaita
Vedanta, 40, 41, 49; CAM and, 21,
28, 41, 180, 191–192, 199; CAM not,
53, 170; Christian critiques of, 16, 46,
50, 57, 62, 63, 70, 72; Christian use
of, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64–65, 78, 88, 157,
158; defined, 40, 46–47; government
funding, 223, 225; neo-Hinduism,
48, 49; religion and, 24, 25, 27, 221;
Vedas, 40; yoga and, 46–49, 50, 51,
52–55, 57, 59, 62, 173–174, 215–216,
223. See also religion
Hinduism Today, 173, 215
Hindu University of America, 54–55
Hinn, Benny, 71
HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act), 201
History and Theory of Informed Consent,
201
Hittleman, Richard, 50
holism. See under worldviews
holistic health-care movement, 4, 10,
11, 76, 144
Holos University, 115
Holy Spirit: emphasis on, 14, 23, 73, 87,
107, 159, 220; energy equated with,
32, 33, 77–78, 157, 158, 160, 208;
energy not, 71, 80; energy relabeled,
61, 62, 69, 211
Holy Yoga, 45, 60, 61, 65; Holy Yoga, 45
homeopathy, 1, 2, 8, 30–32; Avogadro’s
number and, 31; Bible and
Homeopathy, 81; Characteristics of
308 In de x
homeopathy (Cont.)
Homeopathy, 32; Christian critiques
of, 11, 70, 72, 74–75; Christian use
of, 78–79, 81–83, 85, 109, 159, 160;
commercial, 164; consumer demand,
164–165; dilutions, 30–31, 82,
117–119, 135, 164; dynamizations,
31; emotionally satisfying, 165;
government and, 224; Homeopathic
Pharmacopoeia of the United
States, 224; Homeopathic Revolution,
82; Homeopathy, 85; Homeopathy
Examined, 72; in hospitals, 175, 205;
infinitesimals, law of, 30, 82, 120; In
Support of Homoeopathy in the Light
of the Bible, 78; memory of water,
118, 120; Organon of the Rational
Art of Healing (Hahnemann), 30;
Oscillococcinum, 31; placebo, 119;
provings, 30, 120; religion and,
31–32; Resonance, 205; safety, 135,
164; scientific language, 120–122;
similars, law of, 30, 82, 120; studies,
117–120; succussion, 30–31, 82, 117;
trituration, 30, 82; usage, 12, 13,
164–165; with other CAM, 30, 33, 95,
98, 100, 101, 145; zinc, 119–121
homeostasis, 5, 96, 160
Hopf, Wolfgang, 117
Horizon, 118
horoscopes, 218
hospitals: administrators of, 21, 175,
177, 180, 193–196; Beth Israel,
174–175; CAM in, 29, 39, 92, 206,
209; CAM legitimized by, 155, 173,
174–175, 205; Cancer Treatment
Centers of America, 174–175;
City of Faith Medical Center, 159;
Duke University, 174; Hospital La
Gloria, 34; Kaiser Permanente,
175; Maine Medical Center, 195;
Massachusetts General Hospital,
145; M. D. Anderson, 174; Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 132,
174; New York Presbyterian Hospital-
Weill Cornell, 39; Portsmouth
Regional Hospital, 195; Stanford
School of Medicine, 145; UCLA
School of Medicine, 145; University
of California at San Francisco, 174;
University of Massachusetts Medical
Center Stress Reduction Clinic, 38,
114, 174; Women & Infants Hospital,
194
hot flashes, 119, 150
Howard-Brown, Rodney, 71
Huang-ti Nei-ching, 141, 142
Hultgren, Glenn, 103, 106
Hunt, Dave, 57
Huxley, Thomas, 9
hydrotherapy, 35
hypnosis, 100, 136, 151, 175, 198
I Ching, 36, 192
Ideal Academy, 172
idolatry. See under worship
imagery, 26, 100, 161
Immigration Act of 1965, 10, 68, 144
immune system, 79, 124, 127, 140, 147,
160, 162, 166, 175
Indiana University Recreational Sports,
56
Indo-Tibetan Program in Contemplative
Self-Healing, 39
infections, 98, 130, 133, 148, 153
infertility, 145, 150
influenza, 119
informant pseudonyms, 232n22;
Alan, 161; Alejandra, 54; Anne, 210;
Arlene, 218; Betty, 91–92, 211; Bob,
91–92, 212; Connie, 145; Deborah,
81; Delva, 218; Jim, 211–212; John,
210; Julia, 216; Kristin, 216; Marcy,
214; Margaret, 86; Marge, 54;
Marsha, 218; Mary, 196; Matthews,
Dr., 33; Maureen, 11; Molly, 62;
 Index
Nancy, 212; Rachel, 175; Sharon, 215;
Smith, Dr., 206–207, 211–212; Taylor,
Dr., 68; Tess, 32
informed consent, 18, 201–212;
battery, 203, 204, 211; camouflage,
194–195, 199, 205–212, 216–217;
deception, 17, 21, 134, 180, 200, 216,
217, 229; fraud, 17, 21, 134, 200,
216–217, 229; individual standard,
202; material information, 200,
201, 202, 206, 208, 217; negligence,
203; professional-practice standard,
201–202; reasonable-person standard,
201–202, 203; religious information
disclosure, 205–212, 216, 228–229;
risk disclosure, 133, 134, 136, 138,
203; self-censorship, 17, 21, 199,
200, 206–209, 214–215, 229; unfair
business practices, 216, 217. See also
decision making; ethics; safety; tort
law; vulnerable populations
Innate Intelligence, 4, 35, 93–105, 208,
212. See also chiropractic; energy,
vital
Insight Meditation Society, 209
insomnia, 125, 126, 150
Institute of Integrated Medicines, 116
integrative medicine, 2, 3, 12, 26, 112,
115, 154, 174, 205–206. See also
hospitals
International Association of Reiki
Professionals, 189
International Chiropractors’
Association, 101
International Society for the Study
of Subtle Energies and Energy
Medicine, 42, 124
Internet: Amazon.com, 59; Beliefnet.
com, 161; for distant healing, 32,
184; as health-information source,
1, 32, 161–162, 168, 184, 194, 217,
218; Yahoo, 59, 161. See also media;
publishing
309
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 71,
103
iridology, 32, 75, 160
irritable bowel syndrome, 150
Isacowitz, Rael, 58
Iyengar, B. K. S., 48
Jackson, Quinton, 85
Jackson, Robert, 222
Jacob’s Ladder, 100
Jacobson, Michael, 70
Jainism, 28, 40, 47
Japanese-Americans, 181
Jaramillo, F., 84
Jehovah’s Witnesses, 203–204
Jentoft, Peggy, 136, 183–184, 185, 186
Jeremiah, David, 140
Jesus (Christ): added to non-Christian
religions, 59, 62, 158; Christian
doctrine of, 14–15, 44, 107; modeling
healing, 157, 179, 181; modeling
suffering, 158; as standard, 70; used
to critique CAM, 69, 72, 73–74, 102;
validating orthodoxy, 45–46, 61, 63,
65, 75, 77–82, 84–85, 87–88, 103–104,
160, 208
Jews, 3, 15, 28, 34, 157–158
John of the Cross, 38
Johnston, Robert, 227
Jois, K. Pattabhi, 48
Jones, Rhonda, 87–88
Jordan, River, 207
Journal of Alternative and Complementary
Medicine, 145
Journal of Christian Nursing, 76
Journal of Professional Nursing, 211
Journal of the American Chiropractic
Association, 99
Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA), 12, 123, 127, 133,
153
Journal of the American Osteopathic
Association, 29
310 In de x

Kabat-Zinn, Jon, 38, 114, 209 Kunz, Dora, 191, 192

Kadowaki, Kakichi, 158 Kushi, Michio, 36–37
Kantor, Debra, 212
karate, 26–27, 35; for children, 176; labor (childbirth), 119, 122, 150, 151,
Christian critiques of, 72; Christian 156
use of, 81, 86, 87; Chuck Norris: Lancet, 119
Karate Commandos, 176; Chun Kuk Larimore, Walt, 74
Do, 62; Karate Kid, 176; safety, 134. laying on of hands. See under hands
See also martial arts; zazen Lectio Divina, 38
Karate for Christ International, 80, 87 Lefubre, Leo, 158
karma, 21, 179, 181, 185, 186, 191 Let Us Reason Ministries, 105
Keating, Joseph, 101 life force. See energy, vital
Keene, Patricia, 195 Lillard, Harvey, 93
Kendall, Donald, 140, 144, 146 Loizzo, Joseph, 39
Kennedy, Anthony, 223 lotus, 41, 51, 62, 99
Kennedy, Robert, 11, 158 Lust, Benedict, 33
Kent, James Tyler, 32 Lyles, Margaret Lee, 214
Khandavalli, Shamsunder, 28 Lynch, David, 172
ki: Christian critiques of, 72; Christian Lyon, Ross, 104
relabeling of, 78, 81; defined, 36,
180–181, 213; spiritual energy MacArthur, John, 57
labeled, 4, 54, 58, 189, 187. See also Maddox, John, 118
energy, vital Maharishi International University, 41,
kinesiology, applied, 32, 101, 104, 160 88, 134, 225
King, Richard, 25 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 41, 134, 170
Kircher, Athanasius, 28 Main, John, 158
Kirlian, Semyon, 5 Male, Ronald R., 81
Kirlian, Valentina, 5 Malkmus, George, 83
Kirlian photography, 5, 28 mandalas, 192
Kirschmann, Anne Taylor, 164 Mandeville, Marylyn, 62
Kline, Monte, 79 mantras, 41, 181, 183, 185, 186;
Kong, Jian, 145 Christian critiques of, 72; Christian
Koontz, Kay, 5–6, 175 use of, 60–61, 62, 88, 158; defined,
Kordich, Jay, 166 38, 174; Om (Aum), 45, 47, 52,
Kornfield, Jack, 134 56, 61, 62, 174; studies, 114. See
Krieger, Dolores, 136, 190–192, 197 also meditation; Transcendental
Krishna, 47 Meditation
Krishnamacharya, Sri Tirumalai, 48, 50 Mao Tse-tung, 36, 142
Kropinski, Robert, 133–134 Marchand, Murielle, 156, 214
Kuhlman, Kathryn, 159 Maria Kannon Zen Center, 26
kundalini, 47, 49, 50, 54, 55, 71, 133, martial arts, 2, 27, 35–36; aikido, 35,
188, 191. See also energy, vital; yoga 58, 72, 213; bujutsu, 27; bushido,
 Index
27; Christian critiques of, 72, 139;
Christianity & Martial Arts Power,
77; Christian Martial Arts, 77;
Christian use of, 62, 77, 80, 85, 87,
176; Christian versions of, 80–81,
84; in gyms, 175–176; hapkido,
81; Hwa Rang, 81; judo, 35, 72, 81,
176; jujitsu, 72; kempo, 35; kendo,
72; kickboxing, 35; kung fu, 175;
Martial Arts & Yoga, 72; Martial Arts
the Christian Way, 84; mixed martial
arts (MMA), 85, 87, 176–177;
ninjas, 176; Pokémon, 176; practices
changing beliefs, 213; Purpose
Driven Martial Arts, 80; qi in, 36, 77;
religion and, 26–27; in schools, 176;
self-defense, 27, 175, 176; tae kwon
do, 73, 81, 87, 176, 177; Taoism
and, 35–36, 69, 78; Teenage Mutant
Ninja Turtles, 176; usage, 176; with
other CAM, 57, 191. See also karate;
qigong; t’ai chi
Martial Arts Ministries, 84
massage: Christian use of, 75, 78, 109;
emotionally satisfying, 165–166;
informed consent, 211; medical, 175;
professionalized, 171; shiatsu, 22,
36, 160; spiritual, 157, 175; studies,
13, 130, 131, 150, 152; Thai, 54;
usage, 12–13; with other CAM, 33,
98, 122, 163, 198, 199. See also energy
medicine
matching law, 137
materialism. See under worldviews
Matteo Ricci Foundation, 144
Matteo Ricci School of Acupuncture
and Chinese Medicine, 144
Maurer, Edward, 99
Mayo Clinic, 107, 128, 218; on
acupuncture, 144, 145, 147–148, 153;
on meditation, 7, 127, 175; religion
and, 26
311
Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine,
26, 145, 153
McCoy, Matthew, 205
McDonald, William, 98
McDonald’s, 41
McFarlane, Stewart, 213
McGuire, Meredith, 212
McLuhan, Marshall, 76
McSherry, H. L., 102
Mebane, Sister Mary, 85, 210
media, 41, 76, 167, 175, 184, 206;
Associated Press, 59; BBC, 118; CNN,
57; Los Angeles Times, 50; New York
American, 50; New York Times, 29,
144, 214; Time, 41, 42; TV/film, 42,
50, 64, 100, 101, 118, 129, 176, 218
Medical Acupuncture for Physicians
Program, 145
Medicare, 29, 225
meditation, 2; Buddhist, 7, 10, 25, 27,
37–40, 42, 57, 71, 88, 115, 134, 158,
209, 211; in businesses, 39, 172, 173,
209; centering, 58, 80, 193; chanting,
45, 51, 56, 58, 61, 62, 173, 185;
Christian critiques of, 11, 68, 70–71,
72, 86, 139; Christian use of, 59, 86,
211, 214; Christian versions of, 38,
45–46, 60, 62–63, 78, 87–88, 158–159;
government and, 221, 223, 224,
225, 226; Hindu, 41–42, 157–158; in
hospitals, 39–40, 174–175; informed
consent, 206, 209, 211; mu-shin
(no-mind), 25, 158; religion and, 26,
174, 175, 223, 224, 225, 226; safety,
133–135; in schools, 174, 177, 224;
scientific language, 114, 125, 126,
127, 206, 209; sitting, 25, 38, 39, 41,
62, 88, 100; studies, 7, 13, 114–115;
Three-Minute Meditator, 40; Tibetan,
39, 42; usage, 12–13; with other
CAM, 6, 36, 57–58, 72, 186, 193, 199,
210, 213, 214; yoga, 45, 46–47,
312 In de x
meditation (Cont.)
59–60, 62–63, 173; zazen, 25, 27,
158. See also mantras; mindfulness;
Transcendental Meditation
Meehan, Thérèse, 123, 197
Mentgen, Janet, 198
Mercola, Joseph, 29
meridians, 4, 29–30, 32, 35–36, 141–
142, 182, 188, 206; Christian critiques
of, 75, 80, 105; not religion, 146–147.
See also energy, vital; nadis; qi
Meridian Tapping Technique, 29–30
Merton, Thomas, 158
Mesmer, Franz Anton, 28
mesmerism, 4, 8, 28–29, 31, 93, 191
metaphysics, Western, 1, 7, 8, 19, 22,
43, 155, 231n4; CAM, 10, 13, 17, 21,
29–35, 48, 70, 120–122, 180, 188,
191, 198–199; chiropractic, 19–20,
29, 92–95, 97–99, 101, 104, 107, 110;
Christian critiques of, 17, 70, 71;
Christian use of, 14, 107; defined,
4, 28–29, 112; religion and, 22,
180; scientific language, 6, 21. See
also mysticism; New Age; occult;
spirituality
microcosms, 32, 47, 141, 188
Miles, Patricia, 195
Miller, Arlene, 71, 196–197
mind, 9, 42, 47, 186. See also brain;
psychic healing
mind-body therapies, 7, 26, 62–63, 131,
206. See also body-mind-spirit
mindfulness, 37–40; Buddhism and,
37, 39, 209; Christians and, 71; Full
Catastrophe Living (Kabat-Zinn), 38;
government and, 225; in hospitals,
39, 174; meditation, 22, 26, 70;
religion and, 26, 39, 173; in schools,
172–173, 174, 223; studies, 114;
Wherever You Go, There You Are, 38
(Kabat-Zinn); with other CAM, 58,
161. See also meditation
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction
(MBSR), 39, 173, 209, 225
miracles. See divine healing
missions: Buddhist, 25; CAM, 81, 84,
87, 103, 160; Christian, 49, 56, 70, 84;
Hindu, 49; Jesuit, 11, 144, 158
modernity: ancientness and, 20, 24, 48,
53, 122, 140–144, 154, 168, 192, 205,
226; chemicals of, 34,166, 168, 169;
critiqued, 9, 34, 92, 83–84, 144, 197;
embraced, 92, 142, 170, 191; fears of,
166–169. See also detoxification
Mohler, Albert, 57, 59
Monica, Laura, 62
monism. See under worldviews
Montenegro, Marcia, 57
Mooney, Sharon Fish, 71, 196–197
Moore, J. Stuart, 95, 98–99, 105, 110
Moore, R. Laurence, 96
Moss, Donald, 43
moxibustion, 36, 151
mudra (seal), 54
muscle-response testing, 32
Muslims, 221, 226
mysticism: CAM, 27, 42–43, 69, 81,
181; Christian, 38, 158; Eastern, 36,
38, 49, 50, 105, 146, 158; Western,
31, 115, 176. See also metaphysics,
Western; spirituality
nadis, 4, 47, 191. See also meridians
namaste, 54, 62
Namaste Yoga & Tranquility Center, 54
Narayanananda, Swami, 133
National Academy of Sciences, 129
National Academy of Sports Medicine,
63
National Association for Chiropractic
Medicine, 97
National Association of Retail
Druggists, 165
National Cancer Institute, 124, 131, 132,
170
 Index
National Center for Complementary
and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM),
131, 218; on acupuncture, 144,
147, 149; on energy, 5; funding,
11–12, 225, 226; on homeopathy,
119; medicine defined by, 29; on
meditation, 114, 125; on Reiki, 124,
125; on t’ai chi, 128; on yoga, 125
National Certification Board for
Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork,
171
National Certification Commission for
Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine,
171
National Chiropractic Malpractice
Insurance Company Group, 95, 100
National Expert Meeting on Qi Gong and
Tai Chi Consensus Report, 206
National Health Interview Survey, 194
National League for Nursing, 197
Native Americans, 7, 8, 108, 139,
221; therapeutic imperialism and,
226–227
natural remedies: legitimate because
from nature, 5, 91, 122, 185; purer
than biomedicine, 1, 2, 9, 11, 92, 144,
161, 162, 164; usage, 12
Nature, 117–118
nature, 30, 33, 43, 68; cures, 8, 48
naturopathy, 33; Christian use of,
109, 160, 162–163, 167; Clinical
Naturopathy, 33; in hospitals, 175;
studies, 13; usage, 13, 120; with other
CAM, 101
nausea/vomiting, 132, 148, 150, 151,
153, 154
Navigators, 160
Needle, Dr., 169
Nelson, Leah, 62
neuropathy, 116
neuroscience, 2, 6, 7
New Age: Christians guard against,
14, 16, 58, 65, 68–69, 86, 89–90,
313
110, 140, 212; defined, 68; fear of
investigating, 19, 68, 70, 89; labels
CAM as illegitimate, 2, 14, 56, 63, 64,
75, 76, 79, 104–105, 108–109, 171;
science as opposite of, 19, 20, 68, 93,
106, 228. See also Eastern religions;
metaphysics, Western; mysticism;
occult; spirituality
New Age Journal, 171
New Age Medicine, 104
New Age Movement and the Biblical
Worldview, 76
Newport, John, 76
new religious movements, 180, 213
New Thought, 48, 93, 115
New Thought Accreditation
Commission, 115
New York University, 191, 197
NIH (National Institutes of Health), 11,
12. 115, 127, 147, 148, 206, 225
nirvana, 37, 187
nocturnal enuresis, 130, 151
North American Nursing Diagnosis
Association, 197
Nuremberg Code, 202
Nurses Christian Fellowship, 71
Nurse’s Handbook of Alternative &
Complementary Therapies, 120, 126,
135, 205, 210
nutrition, 12, 34–35, 128–130; Breuss
Cancer Cure, 34; Budwig protocol,
34, 161; Christian critiques of, 11;
Christian use of, 160, 162–163;
Gerson therapy, 34, 83, 129–130;
Gerson Therapy, 34; Hallelujah Diet,
34, 83; juicing, 34, 83, 160, 162, 163,
166–167; Kelley program, 34, 83;
macrobiotics, 36–37, 100, 129–130,
131; metaphysics and, 34–35;
organic, 34, 161; raw foods, 34, 163;
studies, 127, 128–130; vegan, 28,
129; vegetarian, 8, 13, 28, 129, 162;
wheatgrass, 34; whole-food,
314
nutrition (Cont.)
plant-based, 10, 28, 129, 137. See
also cancer treatments; nutritional
supplements
nutritional supplements, 10, 101, 137;
antioxidants, 130, 131; Barley Max,
83; cleanse, 101, 132, 160, 166–168;
commercialized, 163, 166–167, 178;
cranberries, 130; curcumin, 130; fish
oil, 130; flaxseed, 34, 130, 131, 161;
ginger, 27; ginseng, 131; government
and, 225; GREENSuperFood, 167;
liver, calf, 34, 129; omega-3 oils, 130;
safety, 34, 130, 131, 132, 133; Saint-
John’s-wort, 130, 131; selenium, 130;
soy, 131; studies, 131–132; thyroid,
130; usage, 12; vitamins, 98, 100, 131,
162; zinc, 119–121. See also cancer
treatments; detoxification; modernity;
nutrition
obesity, 128
occult, 7, 231n4; Christian fear of, 68,
159; labels CAM as illegitimate,
71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 88, 105–106,
140. See also metaphysics, Western;
mysticism
O’Connor, Sandra Day, 223
Office of Alternative Medicine, 11,
225.
Ogle, Marguerite, 58
Ohsawa, George (Yukikazu
Sakurazawa), 36
O’Mathúna, Dónal, 74
Omoto-kyo, 213
One Christian Ministry, 73, 79–80,
85–86
Options, 34
Origin of Species (Darwin), 9
Osa’s Garden, 162
Oschman, James, 6
Osler, William, 9, 144
In d e x
osteopathy, 9, 12, 29–30, 70, 92, 160,
225; Osteopathic Medical College
Information Book, 29
otitis media, 98
Outstretched in Praise, 61
Outstretched in Worship, 61
Pacific College of Oriental Medicine,
139
pain, 130; arthritis, 124, 125, 127, 149,
151, 153, 175; back, 108, 110, 130,
145, 146, 148–149, 150, 151, 152, 175,
203; breast, 150, 212; chronic, 13,
116, 124, 145, 148, 152; dental, 148;
dysmenorrhea, 98, 130, 145, 150, 151;
headache, 11, 98, 124, 130, 132, 133,
143, 145, 148, 150, 151; labor, 122,
150; meanings of, 93, 155–156, 218
pain relief: CAM perceived as
providing, 69, 105–106, 108, 110, 21,
147–148, 180; motivates Christians to
try CAM, 19–20, 86, 90, 92–93, 103,
107, 110–111, 166, 207; pragmatism
in, 88, 130, 137, 206, 218. See also
placebo effect
Palmer, Bartlett Joshua, 94, 95, 102
Palmer College (School) of Chiropractic,
94, 103, 104, 225
Palmer, Daniel David, 93–94, 95, 103,
105
Palmer, Phoebe, 159
Palmer, Walter, 159
palm reading, 93
Paracelsus, 28, 34
Parachin, Victor, 215
paralysis, 133, 148
Passalacqua, Christopher, 100
Patanjali, 47, 216
patient-centered care, 201, 202
Paul, Russill, 59
Pavlik, Sarah, 57
Pelletier, Kenneth, 43
 Index
pendulums, 32, 168, 185, 198
pentecostals: biomedicine critiques by,
159, 212; CAM critiques by, 71–73,
91, 108; CAM use by, 18, 71, 91, 103,
107, 212–213; defined, 14, 232n20.
See also divine healing; evangelicals
Pen Ts’ao, 25
People’s Organization of Community
Acupuncture, 207–208
Peretti, Frank, 68
personal autonomy. See under ethics
Peterson, Eugenie, 50
Pfeifer, Samuel, 72
Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy, 120
physical culture, 48, 57
physical therapy, 58, 126, 150, 152, 175
Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine, 129
Physicians Resource Council, 139
Pilates, 52, 57–58, 61, 62, 101
Pilates, Joseph, 57
placebo effect, 114, 116, 117, 119, 123,
151, 152–153, 154
plants, 23, 33, 34, 122, 184. See also
herbalism; nutrition
pluralism: religious, 15, 16, 17,
31, 43–44, 59, 93, 139, 180, 228;
therapeutic, 14, 17, 18, 90, 107, 111,
137, 156, 160, 216, 218, 228. See also
beliefs; practices
PM Yoga, 65
Pocket Atlas of Chinese Medicine, 146
polarity therapy, 11, 36
politics. See under power
Polk, Branda, 61
Post-Graduate School of Homeopathics,
32
Poulin, Fernan, 6
power: empowerment, 177, 181, 187;
gender and, 21, 157, 164, 176, 180,
193, 196–197; imbalances, 17,
204, 219; mental, 42–43, 186, 191;
315
physical, 175; political, 10, 48, 227;
sexual, 47, 50, 187–188; spiritual, 47,
71, 73, 74–75, 77–78, 174, 175, 183,
186. See also class, social; gender;
race/ethnicity
Power Healing, 76
Poyen, Charles, 28
practices: changing beliefs, 17, 19,
21, 44, 57, 173, 204, 212, 213–216,
217, 218–219, 228; not religion, 81;
religious, 22, 23–24, 46, 60–65, 220,
221; ritual, 2, 27, 28, 53, 60, 181, 185;
sacramental, 23, 60, 78, 157. See also
beliefs; body; religion; worldviews;
worship
PraiseMoves, 63–64; PowerMoves Kids,
64; PraiseMoves, 64; PraiseMoves Kids,
64
prana: Christian critiques of, 70;
Christian relabeling of, 62, 78;
defined, 47; pranayama, 47, 61, 133,
173; spiritual energy labeled, 4, 6, 28,
32, 33, 34, 95, 189, 191–193, 198. See
also energy, vital; yoga
prayer: CAM with, 13, 62, 93, 160–162,
211, 212; chiropractic and, 93, 94,
100, 102, 106–107; meditation and,
38, 88, 206; school, 222–224; studies,
7, 107, 127, 226; yoga, 53–54, 59–61,
62–63, 64, 65. See also divine healing;
hands: praying
Pray with Purpose, 38
Prem, Baba, 55
Principles and Practice of Medicine, 9, 144
Protestants: Anglican, 210–211;
Assemblies of God, 56, 108; Baptist,
57, 58, 61, 62, 104, 173; Calvinist,
8, 156; cessationist, 8, 14, 71, 73,
103, 162; Charismatic, 10, 14, 71,
159, 232n20; Church of Christ, 162;
Episcopal, 60, 159, 215; Holiness,
159; Jesus people, 10; Methodist,
316
Protestants (Cont.)
61, 88, 159; Presbyterian, 93, 103;
priesthood of all believers and, 67,
140, 179, 219; Reformation, 8, 23, 65,
67, 73, 219; Unitarian, 215; United
Church of Christ, 156; Unity, 108;
Word-oriented, 23–24, 46, 65, 78, 89.
See also beliefs; Bible; Christians;
clergy; evangelicals; pentecostals
psychic healing: Christian critiques of,
11, 71, 88; clairvoyance, 4, 32, 183,
198; crystals, 126; energy, 27, 28, 191,
193; intention, 6, 7, 32, 183, 185, 192,
193, 194; intuition, 4, 32, 54, 115,
136, 183, 186–187, 189, 193, 194, 209,
213; sixth sense, 213; third eye, 183,
184, 189, 196; usage, 34, 185–188,
194, 196, 198, 210
psychology, 12, 33, 42, 115, 191
psychosis, 133, 134, 136, 148
Public Health Service, 202
publishing, 48, 49, 113–114, 195;
best-sellers, 29, 38, 41, 49, 50, 68,
81, 129, 131, 158; InterVarsity Press,
104; Lifeway, 61; London Missionary
School of Medicine, 82; Paulist Press,
60; Paulist Productions, 60; Society
of Saint John the Evangelist, 60;
Thomas Nelson, 61; Time Warner’s
Faith Words, 45. See also Internet;
media
Purpose Driven Life (Warren), 81
qi (ch’i), 231n1; Christian critiques
of, 69, 74, 105, 140; Christian
relabeling of, 77–78, 80; defined,
35–36, 69, 141–142, 144–145, 154;
not religion, 128, 146–147, 206;
spiritual energy labeled, 4, 32, 33,
34, 54, 58, 95, 144, 160, 163, 189,
191, 198. See also energy, vital;
meridians; yin-yang
In de x
qigong, 35, 58, 176; Christian critiques
of, 139; Christian use of, 214;
scientific language, 206; sexuality in,
187; studies, 114–115; usage, 13; with
other CAM, 180. See also martial arts
Quackwatch, 97
quantum physics, 2, 6–7, 120, 121, 122
Quinn, Janet, 124, 214
race/ethnicity, 13, 15, 26, 176. See also
class, social; power
Radha, Swami Sivenanda (Sylvia
Hellman), 55
Rand, William, 85, 195
Randi, James, 118
randomized controlled trials (RCTs),
113, 114, 150, 151
Raposa, Michael, 213
Raso, Jack, 97
rational choice, 137
Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph, 11
Rawdon, Larry, 162
Ray of Light (Madonna), 51
reflexology, 35, 87, 160
Reid, Mike, 99
Reiki, 2, 21, 179–190, 193–196, 199;
attunements, 85, 181, 184, 185, 186,
187–188; Buddhism and, 11, 180–181,
185, 187, 188; Christian critiques of,
11, 75; Christian use of, 78, 85, 87,
89, 157, 160, 180–182, 214; Christian
versions of, 6, 11, 78, 80, 156, 179,
185, 195; defined, 180–182; Essential
Reiki, 186; in hospitals, 193–196,
209; informed consent, 194–196,
210–211, 213; initiations, 181, 184,
185; practices changing beliefs,
213–214; praying hands, 182, 185;
professionalized, 171; psychic, 186,
187, 188, 210; Reiki Healing Touch
and the Way of Jesus, 78; Reiki Level
One Manual, 185; religion and, 157,
 Index 317

179–180, 181, 188–190, 195; safety, religious identity; worship; specific

136; scientific language, 125–126, traditions
194–196; Secrets of Reiki, 184; sexuality Religious Right, 14
in, 187–188; studies, 115–116, 124; Renaissance, 6
symbols, 78, 85, 181, 183, 185, 186, Reston, James, 144
188, 213, 214; usage, 13, 194; with Ricci, Matteo, 144
other CAM, 54, 191, 198, 210 Rig-Veda, 191
reincarnation, 37, 46, 57, 185, 186, 191; Robaina, Holly, 56–57, 74
liberation from 46, 47, 48, 54 Roberts, Oral, 159
relaxation: muscle, 26, 206; religion Robertshaw, Angela, 136, 184, 188, 213
and, 40, 42, 61; secular language, 86, Rocca, Sabrina, 80
127, 174, 195; studies, 124, 127, 150, Rogers, Martha, 197
152, 226. See also stress Rondberg, Terry, 97
religion: CAM and, 1, 3, 13, 220–221; Roth, Nancy, 60
creeds in, 19, 22, 24, 27, 46, 52–53, Ruggie, Mary, 114, 217
100; defined, 3, 19, 22–28, 46, 170, Rush, Benjamin, 8
180, 189, 220, 221; disavowing, 21, Rutherford, George, 172
26, 43, 207; disillusionment with, 3, Ryan, Thomas, 59
7, 8, 59, 87, 156–159, 216; doctrines
in, 24, 40, 66, 97, 208, 74, 86, 102, sacredness, 22, 23, 33, 34, 54, 65, 174,
103, 157; dogma in, 53, 96, 101, 180, 185, 186, 189, 198, 227. See also
158, 173, 179, 188–189; faith in, 75, religion; spirituality
81, 82, 84, 87, 103, 107, 108, 157, safety, 12, 20, 34, 75–76, 112, 130,
159, 173, 179, 192; forgiveness in, 131–138, 153, 164
14, 26; functions of, 3, 24, 26–27, Salladay, Susan, 209
110, 163; government and, 200, salvation: in Christianity, 14, 70, 86,
220–227; irreligion and, 200, 223, 88, 94; in Christian yoga, 60, 63;
224, 226; lived, 17; meanings in, in yoga, 46, 48, 60, 174. See also
17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 44, 56, 59, 76, enlightenment
100; minority, 226; monotheistic, samadhi (bliss), 47, 50, 173
17, 43, 103, 158, 202, 228, 237n5; Sanskrit, 38, 51, 62, 87, 158, 181
negative associations of, 24, 188, Saraswati, 41
192; panentheistic, 68; pantheistic, Satan, 71, 76, 79, 81, 84, 85, 156, 162
57, 58, 68, 70, 76; privatization of, Satel, Sally, 196–197
227; rules in, 24, 27; science and, Satyananda, Swami, 158
24–25, 43, 49, 154, 170; sin in, 14, Saxion, Valerie, 167
44, 53, 83, 84, 102, 156, 157. See also Scheel, John, 33
beliefs; body; compassion; Eastern schizophrenia, 150
religions; emotions; enlightenment; schools, 217; government and, 21, 200,
metaphysics, Western; New Age; 222–224; martial arts in, 176, 177;
pluralism; practices; sacredness; meditation in, 39, 172–173, 177, 225;
salvation; spirituality; surveys: yoga in, 52, 64, 173–174
318 In d e x
science: as authenticating device, 25,
81, 86; Christian approval of, 68;
Christian critiques of, 68, 79; defined,
3, 49, 112; empiricism and, 7, 9, 25,
30, 49, 68, 122, 124, 141–142, 145,
154, 191; popular, 7, 49, 51, 120,
122; religion and, 24–25, 43, 49, 154,
170; as religiously neutral, 2, 19, 20,
68, 104, 105; technology and, 5, 7,
8, 42–43, 68, 140, 144, 156. See also
biomedicine; techniques
scientific language, 6, 120; anatomy/
physiology, 33, 49, 96–97, 98, 125,
145–146, 147, 171; biology, 49, 114,
115, 117–118, 119, 135; camouflage
with, 194–195, 199, 205–209;
chemistry/physics, 6, 33, 86, 121,
122, 125, 147, 170, 189; endorphins,
86, 125, 147, 206; enzymes, 34,
167; neuroscience, 2, 6, 7, 29, 49,
94, 96–97,102, 105, 110, 125, 140,
147; quantum physics, 2, 6–7, 120,
121, 122. See also informed consent;
science; scientific studies
scientific naturalism, 9, 44, 68
scientific studies, 112–113; bias, 114,
130, 150, 151–152, 154; blinding in,
117, 118, 126; citation bias, 116–117;
falsification, 125; file-drawer effect,
115; observational, 114; observer
bias, 118; outcome-based, 114; poor-
quality, 114–115, 117, 118, 126, 127,
151–152, 154; publication bias, 115;
randomized controlled trials (RCTs),
113, 114, 145, 150, 151; replication,
117, 118, 119, 123, 124; sampling
bias, 116; statistics in, 113, 114, 116–
117, 118, 123, 127. See also efficacy;
safety; systematic reviews
Scientology, 102
Second Vatican Council, 10–11
Secret, The, 101
secularity: CAM associated with, 55,
89; CAM distinguished from, 54;
implies legitimacy, 178, 205; as
marketing strategy, 50–52, 170–177,
206; professionalization implies,
171, 175, 198; religion and, 2–3, 67;
secularization theory and, 227
Sedona, 190
self (Self): Atman, 40, 59; part of
universe, 37, 54, 158, 188; union with
divine, 46, 51, 55, 59, 186, 187, 210,
215–216. See also God; universe
self-determination. See under ethics
Seven Storey Mountain (Merton), 158
sexuality, 47–48, 50, 52, 56, 187–188
Shalom Yoga, 62
shamanism, 54, 181
“Shanti Ashtangi” (Madonna), 51
Shelly, Judy, 76
Shen Nung, 25
Shih-chi, 142
Shinto, 72, 8, 180, 213
Shiva, 47, 49, 62
Shukla, Aseem, 53, 55, 215–216
Shulman, Joey, 29
Singleton, Mark, 48
Skillen, Gary, 168
skin diseases, 148
Skyrme, Brenda, 72
Slaughter, Ronald, 97
Smiley, Nina, 40
Smith, Adam, 41
Smith, Linda, 78
Smuts, Jan, 3
Sood, Amit, 7, 127, 151–152
soul: human, 49, 62, 94, 99, 102, 103,
156, 198, 212; of plants, 33
Soyen Shaku (Soen, Shaku), 25, 49
spirit guides, 78, 183, 185, 186, 188,
195, 198, 214
Spirit in Business World Conference,
172
 Index
spirits: channeling, 8, 29, 31, 89, 93,
183; defined, 4; harmful, 25, 28, 85,
142; human, 99; plant, 28; universal,
40, 47, 180. See also body-mind-spirit;
demons; spirituality; universe
Spiritual Emergence Network, 133
spiritualism, 8, 29, 93
spirituality: CAM and, 42–43, 48, 49,
56, 87, 95, 100, 174; defined, 4, 24;
desire for, 10, 157–158; holistic, 43;
is religion, 19, 22, 24, 26–27, 112,
180; not religion, 2, 21, 39, 53, 54,
65, 139, 145, 188–189, 191, 199, 206;
safety, 131–136; scientific language,
195, 198, 206–209; universal, 19,
22, 24, 25, 46, 53, 59, 228. See also
energy, vital; metaphysics, Western;
mysticism; New Age
sports, 39, 50, 56, 62–63, 77, 206;
combat, 175–176
Ssu-ma Ch’ien, 142
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 164
Star Wars, 4, 176
Stein, Diane, 136, 184, 186, 187, 196,
210, 213
Steinecke, Richard, 208
Stewart, Walter, 118
Still, Andrew Taylor, 29
stress: Buddhism and, 37, 38–39;
causes of, 37, 79, 160, 170;
geopathic, 168; not religion, 38–39,
172–173, 174, 194, 195, 209, 214;
relief, 65, 80, 98, 101, 128; studies,
116, 124–125, 126, 226. See also
relaxation
Stress Reduction Clinic, 38
stroke, 133, 150
Subtle Energies, 124
suffering: Buddhism and, 37, 39,
158–159, 185; Christian valorization
of, 60, 155–157; Hinduism and, 41,
46; motivates CAM use, 1, 3, 8, 15,
319
17, 91, 164, 165–166, 177. See also
body; compassion; pain
Sullivan, Winnifred, 220
Sun Salutation (Surya Namaskara), 48,
51, 53, 60, 62, 63. See also asanas;
yoga
supernatural, 8, 9, 23, 28, 47–48, 107,
139
superstition, 8, 25, 56, 68, 71, 73, 88,
142
Supreme Court, 9, 217, 221, 222, 223,
224. See also Constitution; court cases
surveys: CAM usage, 1–2, 12, 13, 56,
98–99, 133, 143, 164, 175, 194;
nutrition, 129; religious identity,
13–14, 24, 102; use of, 18, 107–108,
126, 239n32
Suzuki, D. T., 25
Swamiji (Divine Life Society), 53
Swatmarama, Swami, 133
Swedenborg, Emanuel, 30
Swedenborgianism, 30–31
Syman, Stefanie, 56
systematic reviews, 113; acupuncture,
116–117, 148–154; homeopathy, 118,
119; meditation, 114–115; t’ai chi,
127; Therapeutic Touch, 123; yoga,
114. See also Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews; scientific studies
t’ai chi (T’ai Chi Ch’üan, Taijiquan),
35–36; Christian critiques of, 62, 69,
139; Christian use of, 69, 89; elderly
and, 128, 176, 206; religion and, 26,
206; safety, 128; scientific language,
206; studies, 69, 114, 126, 127–128;
Taoism and, 36, 69; usage, 13, 23, 36;
What Is “Tai Chi”?, 145; with other
CAM, 99, 214. See also martial arts
Takata, Hawayo, 181
Taoism, 1, 19, 22, 155, 231n1;
acupuncture and, 20, 139–140, 141,
320 In de x
Taoism (Cont.)
142, 154, 206, 207; CAM and, 26, 28,
43, 180, 213; Christian critiques of,
69, 72, 86, 139–140; Christian use of,
78; defined, 35–36; martial arts and,
26, 35–36, 69, 78; religion and, 27,
221. See also religion
TCM, 35, 36, 142–144, 171, 175, 191,
205. See also acupuncture; herbalism;
herbs
techniques, 216, 227; coded as medical,
29–31, 68, 91, 105, 128, 147, 193,
194–195, 206; coded as non-religious,
2, 25, 38, 53, 62, 70, 77, 80, 81, 84,
85–86, 174, 176; coded as scientific,
2, 43, 48, 86, 89, 170, 191, 208;
religious, 4, 40, 105
Tennant, Agnieszka, 65
Teresa of Avila, 38
Theosophy, 48, 49, 191
therapeutic culture. See pluralism
Therapeutic Touch, 2, 21, 179–180,
190–193, 196–199; Accepting Your
Power to Heal (Krieger), 191;
Buddhism and, 191, 192; defined,
191, 193; Christian critiques of,
11, 71, 76, 81; Christian use of,
80, 81, 87, 157, 160; government
funding, 225; Hinduism and,
191, 192; informed consent, 136,
210–211; nurses and, 190, 192–193,
196–197, 199, 209; placebo, 123;
practices changing beliefs, 214;
professionalized, 171, 198; psychic,
191; religion and, 80, 191, 192, 193;
safety, 136; science and, 6, 191,
192; studies, 122–124; Theory and
Practice of Therapeutic Touch, 6, 124;
Theosophy and, 191; Therapeutic
Touch (Krieger), 198; Therapeutic
Touch (National League for Nursing),
197; usage, 198
Therapeutic Touch International
Association, 197
This Present Darkness (Peretti), 68
Thoreau, Henry David, 49
Tijuana, 34
Tiwari, Subhas, 54–55
Today’s Christian Woman, 57
tort law, 180, 200, 203. See also
consumers; ethics; informed consent
toxins. See detoxification
Traditional Chinese Medicine. See TCM
Transcendental Meditation (TM), 10,
41–42, 50; Christian critiques of, 11,
75; Christian use of, 88; government
funding, 221, 225; informed consent,
134; safety, 75–76, 133–134; in
schools, 172; scientific language, 170;
studies, 114–115; TM Book, 170; with
other CAM, 31–32, 101, 102
Transcendentalism, 31, 144
Trappists, 158
Tribe, Laurence, 221
Ueshiba, Morihei, 213
Ultimate Fighting Championship, 85,
177
Universal Awakening, 42
Universal Consciousness, 50
universal intelligence, 170, 189. See also
Innate Intelligence
universe (cosmos): composed of energy,
6–7; divine, 40, 186, 187, 213; one
with, 37, 45, 54, 99, 186, 188, 213,
225; source of vital energy, 4, 43, 187.
See also God; self
Upanishads, 46
Usui, Mikao, 180–181
van de Velde, Jane, 195
Versteeg, Peter, 215
Vishnu, 51
vision problems, 148, 150
 Index 321

visualization, 40, 61, 181, 193 World Medical Association, 201

Vitale, Anne, 115 World Parliament of Religions, 25, 49
vital force, 4, 30, 33, 34, 55, 70, 79, 93, worldviews: CAM and Christian,
95, 122. See also energy, vital 19, 43–44, 62, 67, 90, 104, 228,
vitalism, 33, 96, 103 234n44; CAM as gateway to holistic,
Vivekananda, Swami, 49 17, 66, 89, 137, 214, 216, 219 (see
vulnerable populations, 18, 229; also practices: changing beliefs);
children, 17, 52, 164, 170, 176, 217, comprehensive, 25; dualistic, 23,
222; elderly, 17, 36, 52, 128, 176, 206, 43–44; holistic, 3–4, 13, 43–44, 96;
217; prisoners, 39, 202; seriously ill, materialistic, 2, 3, 9, 10, 68, 71, 104,
17, 52, 203, 206, 209; unconscious, 159; monistic, 4, 43–44, 66, 214
203, 210. See also ethics; informed worship: body in, 60; idolatry in, 2,
consent; tort law 15–16, 25, 44, 73–75, 79, 82–83, 84,
228; of one God, 15, 24; yoga, 45, 48,
Walmart, 2, 52, 120, 121 51, 52, 53, 58, 61–63, 64. See also God;
Watchman Fellowship, 104 practices
Weed, Samuel, 93, 103 wushu, 27, 35. See also martial arts
Weil, Andrew, 163 Wuthnow, Robert, 219
Weise, Gilbert, 165 Wuthnow, Sara, 80
Weldon, John, 104 Wyman, Scott, 157
White, Danny, 84
White House Commission on Xie, Zhu-Fan, 116
Complementary and Alternative X-rays, 133, 166, 169
Medicine Policy, 148, 225 Yahweh Yoga, 60
White, Judith, 78
WHO (World Health Organization), yin-yang: balance, 22, 128, 135, 144;
116–117, 128, 153, 218 Christian critiques of, 69, 72, 105,
Whole Foods, 123, 132 140; defined, 4; not religion, 128,
WholyFit, 62–63 145–147; Taoism and, 35–37, 142,
Wigmore, Ann, 34 144–145, 154, 192. See also energy,
Williams, Debbie, 38 vital; qi
Williamson, Lola, 157 YMCA, 2, 216
Williamson, Wendy, 77, 80, 84 yoga, 1, 2, 19, 45–66; anjalimudra
Willis, Laurette, 63 (praying hands), 54, 88; asanas,
Wilson, Cheryl, 162–163 46–48, 49, 50–51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 62,
Wilson, Mike, 162–163 63, 64, 174, 215, 226; Ashtanga, 216;
Wimber, John, 76 Autobiography of a Yogi, 49; Buddhism
Wing, Janet, 194–195 and, 47, 57; Christian critiques of, 11,
Winterson, Jeanette, 121 52–53, 56–57, 68–69, 71, 72, 74, 86,
Wirth, Daniel, 124 91, 102, 139; Christian use of, 55, 89,
Wolf, Ava, 194–195 214, 215–216, 218; Christian versions
World Chiropractic Alliance, 97, 99, 205 of, 45–46, 55, 56–57, 58–66, 77, 80;
322 In de x
yoga (Cont.)
commercialized, 45, 48, 51–52, 55;
defined, 46–47; exercise and, 52–56,
57, 61, 62–66, 125; Forever Young,
Forever Healthy, 50; government and,
223–224, 225–226; hatha, 39, 47–48,
49, 50, 55, 57, 133, 191, 215; Hatha
Yoga (Folan), 51; Hatha Yoga (Radha),
55; Hinduism and, 46–49, 50, 51,
52–55, 57, 59, 62, 173–174, 215–216,
223; immortality and, 47–48;
informed consent, 209, 214–215;
Invitation to Christian Yoga, 60; Jain,
47; Jesus in the Lotus, 59; Kripalu,
59; kundalini, 47, 49, 50, 54, 55, 71,
133, 188, 191; medical, 26, 174–175;
namaste, 54, 62; Pilates and, 52,
57–58; postural, 45, 46, 47–48, 55;
practices changing beliefs, 55–56,
173, 214–216, 224; pranayama, 47,
61, 133, 173; Prayer of Heart and
Body, 59; professionalized, 171;
religion and, 26, 46, 49–57, 173–174;
safety, 133, 134, 135; samadhi (bliss),
47, 50, 173; in schools, 173–174,
223–224; science and, 48–49, 51;
sexuality in, 47, 52, 187; studies, 12,
13, 114, 124–125, 127; Sun Salutation
(Surya Namaskara), 48, 51, 53, 60, 62,
63; Tantra, 47, 191; usage, 12–13, 23,
52, 56; with other CAM, 39, 95, 101,
176, 191; Yoga and You, 50; Yoga for
Americans, 50; Yoga for Christians, 61;
Yoga for Health, 50; Yoga Journal, 51,
52, 215; Yoga Prayer, 60; Yoga Sutras,
47; Yoga the College Way, 53, 133, 174;
yoginis, 47; yogis, 42, 47–48, 50
Yoga Alliance, 62, 171
Yoga Ed., 173–174, 223
Yogananda, Paramhansa, 49–50
Yoga Research and Education Center,
171
Youngblood, Lloyd, 79
zazen. See under meditation
Zen. See under Buddhism
Zen Macrobiotics, 36
Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit, 11
Zlotnik, Jerry, 165
Zoroastrianism, 191