Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Candy Gunther Brown - The Healing Gods. Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Christian America. Oxford University Press (2013)
Candy Gunther Brown - The Healing Gods. Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Christian America. Oxford University Press (2013)
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.
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
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
1. Is CAM Religious? 22
3. Is CAM Christian? 67
4. I Love My Chiropractor! 91
8. Energy Medicine: How Her Karma Ran Over His Dogma 179
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
“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
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?
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
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)
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
“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
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”:
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.
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!
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
figure 5.1 Homeopathic zinc lozenges for sale at Walmart, 2012, (a) front,
(b) back. (Photographs by author)
figure 5.2 “100% guaranteed pure therapeutic grade essential oils” in Whole
Foods aromatherapy section, 2011. (Photograph by author)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
figure 7.1 GREENSuperFood fills any nutritional gaps remaining for the
Whole Foods shopper, 2011. (Photograph by author)
168 the healing gods
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
“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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
c h a p t er 3
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
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
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
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
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
———. 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
———. 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
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
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
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
———. 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
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
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
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
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
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
American Academy of Medical asanas, 46–48, 49, 50–51, 54, 55, 60,
Acupuncture, 145, 171 62, 64, 174, 215, 226; corpse, 54;
American Association of Acupuncture downward-facing dog, 54; eagle, 51;
and Oriental Medicine, 171 Sun Salutation, 48, 51, 53, 60, 62, 63;
American Cancer Society, 129, 131, 132, tree, 54. See also yoga
170 Asia, 1, 10, 19, 22, 25, 70, 144; China,
American Chiropractic Association, 96, 25, 27, 35–37, 140–144, 154; India,
97, 99, 101 37, 40, 42, 46–49, 50, 52, 56, 59, 170,
American College of Sports Medicine, 180–181, 227; Japan, 11, 25, 26–27,
62, 63 36, 88, 142, 144, 158, 180–181, 213;
American Holistic Medical Association, South Asia, 40, 45, 46–48; Tibet, 180,
145 191
American Holistic Nurses Association, Asian-Americans, 176
115, 197, 198, 209 Association for Applied
American Hospital Association, 174, Psychophysiology and Biofeedback,
194, 201 42, 43
American Journal of Nursing, 191 Association for Mindfulness in
American Medical Association, 9, 12 Education, 172–173
American Nurses Association, 197 Association of Accredited Naturopathic
American Psychiatric Association, 134 Medical Colleges, 33
American Psychological Association, 12 Association of Chiropractic Colleges, 96
American Yoga Association, 52, 53, Association of Transpersonal
175 Psychology, 42
Anderson, Neil, 70 Association of Vineyard Churches, 76
angels, 31, 71, 78, 185, 186, 192, 196 asthma, 98, 119, 125, 130, 148, 150, 151
animal magnetism, 4, 29, 93. See also astrology, 7, 8, 28, 32, 35, 37, 57, 178,
energy, vital; mesmerism 218
anjalimudra (praying hands), 54, 88 atheism, 2, 68, 94, 159, 189, 207,
Ankerberg, John, 104 238n22
Annals of Internal Medicine, 131, 148 Atman, 40, 47, 59
anthroposophy, 32 aura, 32, 37, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189,
anxiety. See under emotions 195, 199, 214; Christian critiques of,
applied kinesiology, 32, 101, 104, 160 75; in Kirlian photography, 5; layers,
aromatherapy, 54, 160, 210, 218; 126, 189, 192
Aromatherapy, 122; Aromatherapy for autism, 150
Health Professionals, 122; Complete Ayurveda, 13, 42, 78, 99, 191, 225
Aromatherapy Handbook, 33;
essential oils, 33, 122–123; Practice of Backos, Marcia, 179
Aromatherapy, 122 Bad Science, 131–131
arthritis, 124, 125, 127, 149, 151, 153, Baldwin, Anne Linda, 115
175 Bartleson, J. D., 153
Arumugaswami, Sannyasin, 215–216 Beals, Brandon, 87
Index 299
Christian Research Institute, 69, 80 profits from, 31, 34, 42, 45, 51–52,
Christians, 1, 3, 10–11, 13–16, 122, 143, 163, 164–165, 166–169, 178,
43–44, 67–90, 155–159. See also 197; secularity implied by, 41, 170,
Catholics; evangelicals; pentecostals; 172, 178, 189–190, 198; value implied
Protestants by, 52, 190
Christians and Cancer, 163 common cold, 1, 120
Christian Science, 9, 48, 93, 102, 108, compassion, 26, 28, 40, 193, 195
159 Complementary and Alternative
ChristJitsu, 84 Medical Research Center (University
Christoga, 60, 62; Christoga, 59 of Michigan), 225
chronic illness, 116, 124, 126, 175 Complementary and Alternative Therapies
Chuster, Judy, 87, 157 Research, 12
civil rights movement, 10, 201 Complementary and Integrative
Clarksville Mixed Martial Arts Academy, Medicine Program (Mayo Clinic), 145
87 Confucianism, 27, 31, 35, 72, 140
Clark, Thomas, 222 consciousness: in all matter, 7, 186,
class, social, 13, 26, 29, 48, 197. See also 191; transforming, 172, 173, 181;
power; race/ethnicity universal (divine), 40, 41, 42–43, 50,
clergy: CAM critiqued by, 2, 8; CAM 53, 198
endorsed by, 103–104, 109, 159; conspiracy theories, 162, 169–170
courted as CAM allies, 102; divine Constitution, 15, 220; coercion test, 17,
healing discounted by, 8, 110, 155, 202, 216, 222, 223, 224; endorsement
156, 157; individual, 9, 83, 88, 93, test, 223; First Amendment, 200,
103, 104, 156 220, 221, 222; free exercise, 54, 220,
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 221; Fourteenth Amendment, 222;
(CDSR), 113, 117; acupuncture, 148– incorporation, 222; Lemon test, 223;
151; aromatherapy, 122; biofeedback, religious equality, 18, 21, 200, 222,
114; chiropractic, 130; cranberries, 224, 226; religious establishment, 12,
130; homeopathy, 119; Laetrile, 18, 19, 21, 171, 172, 173, 174, 200,
132; massage, 130; meditation, 114; 220–227, 229; religious voluntarism,
mistletoe/Iscador, 131; Saint-John’s- 18, 21, 200, 222, 224. See also court
wort, 130, 131; t’ai chi, 127–128; yoga, cases; government; schools; Supreme
114. See also systematic reviews Court
cognitive dissonance, 17 Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Cohen, Michael, 209 133
colic, infantile, 130 consumers: demand by, 11, 164–165,
color therapy, 35, 183, 193 175, 177; pragmatic, 17, 218–219,
commercialization: detrimental, 219; 220; responsibilities of, 19, 202,
fear used in, 166–169; government 217–220, 229; rights of, 19, 21, 201,
funding, 225; of health care, 11–12; 202, 205, 209, 218, 227. See also
insurance and, 175, 178; profit decision making; informed consent;
motives and, 48, 55, 83, 161, 194; tort law
Index 303
continuing education unit (CEU), 145, Dao of Chinese Medicine, 140, 144
195, 197, 198 Darwin, Charles, 9, 25
correspondence, 4, 28, 32, 170–171 Davenas, Elisabeth, 118
Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and David Lynch Foundation, 172
Oriental Medicine, 171 Davis, Devra, 169–170
counterculture, 10, 50 Death of Satan, 73
court cases: Agostini v. Felton, 224; deception. See under informed consent
Canterbury v. Spence, 203; Dent v. decision making: autonomous, 17, 201,
West Virginia, 9; Edwards v. Aguillard, 217, 219, 228; freedom of choice
223; Employment Division v. Smith, in, 3, 19, 200, 205; informed, 17,
221; Engel v. Vitale, 222, 223; Everson 18, 21, 200, 202, 203, 208, 219–220,
v. Board of Education, 222, 224; Lee v. 229; intentionality in, 201, 202, 219;
Weisman, 223; Lemon v. Kurtzman, shared, 201. See also consumers;
223; Lynch v. Donnelly, 223; Malette informed consent
v. Shulman, 203; Malnak v. Yogi, Declaration of Lisbon, 201
172, 221, 225; Mitchell v. Helms, Deep South Alliance of Fitness
224; Natanson v. Kline, 203; Salgo v. Professionals, 61
Leland Stanford Jr. University, 201; Deists, 15, 31
Santa Fe Independent School District Delbanco, Andrew, 73
v. Doe, 223; Schloendorff v. Society of dementia, 114, 119, 122, 123, 150
New York Hospitals, 203; Schnellmann demons, 31, 71–72, 75, 85, 196
v. Roettger, 216; School District of DeNaro, Anthony D., 134
Abington Township v. Schempp, Denison, Virginia, 50
222; Torcaso v. Watkins, 221; United depression. See under emotions
States v. Ballard, 217; United States v. Descartes, René, 23, 49
Seeger, 221; Wilk v. American Medical Desmond, Deborah, 54
Association, 12; Zelman v. Simmons- detoxification, 162; Aqua Detox/foot
Harris, 224. See also Constitution; baths, 101, 131–132, 163; coffee
Supreme Court enemas/colonic irrigation, 34, 129,
Covington, Daryl, 80–81, 87 132, 160, 163; commercialized, 166–
Cox, Harvey, 44 169; dowsing/electromedicine, 32,
crystals: Christian critiques of, 11, 75, 72, 79, 168; dry brushing, 160; energy
89; usage, 126, 168, 183, 186, 187, medicine, 136, 185, 199; shatkarmas
197, 198 (stomach cloth), 47. See also cancer
Cullis, Charles, 159 therapies; modernity; nutritional
Culpepper, Emily, 176 supplements: cleanse
Cushman, Anne, 215 Devi, Indra, 50
diabetes, 128
Dager, Albert, 74 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Dalai Lama, 7, 89 Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), 134
Dankmeyer, Todd, 165 Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, 129
Daoism. See Taoism diets. See nutrition
304 In de x
digestive problems, 148, 150 226; science as opposite of, 19. See
DigiBio, 118–119 also Asia; New Age
Dillon, Stephanie, 65 Eck, Diana, 221
discernment ministries, 58, 69, 71, 80, efficacy, 20, 112–138; ancientness
86, 88, 104, 105, 220 and, 20, 141, 144–145, 154; and
disease, 3; causes, 4, 30, 94–95, 112, asking why, 88, 90, 109, 113, 137,
156–157, 166; dis-ease, 4, 97–98, 110; 140; assessing, 117, 124; implying,
prevention, 28 124–128; quality of life, 127, 128,
distant healing, 6, 32, 168, 183–184, 186 131; rationalizing lack of, 124, 153;
divination, 15, 71, 72, 73, 79, 168, 192 religious legitimacy inferred from,
divine. See God; universe 20, 22, 68, 69, 75, 86, 105–106, 108,
divine healing, 9, 18, 71, 107–108, 110–111, 212, 228. See also safety;
135, 156, 159, 212–213; anointing scientific studies
for, 157, 162; miracles of, 8, 14, Einstein, Albert, 6
15, 107, 108, 156, 161–162, 181. Eisenberg, David, 217
See also Protestants: cessationist; electricity, 5, 6, 96, 105, 147
pentecostals; prayer Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 49
Divine Life Society, 53 Emerson, William, 48–49
dizziness, 130, 132 emotions, 3, 137; anxiety, 75, 79, 114,
Dobson, James, 140 124, 125, 126, 133, 151, 195, 209;
Donahue, John, 27 depression, 125, 126, 130, 133,
Donahue, Joseph, 97, 208 134, 150, 175; fear, 3, 99, 122, 137,
Donner, Fritz, 117 168–169, 205; healing of, 12, 43, 100,
Don-Wauchope, Sallee, 78 126, 165–165, 186, 209; hope, 8, 24,
Douglas, William, 222, 223 82, 110, 131, 137, 161, 163, 165, 185,
Dr. Oz Show, 218 227. See also religion
drugs: CAM preferred to, 11, 86, 116; empiricism. See under science
side effects, 11, 33, 120, 122, 153, energy, vital : balance, 4–5, 30, 35–36,
164, 195. See also biomedicine 43, 51, 128, 135, 142, 144, 154, 175,
dualism. See under worldviews 185, 190, 193, 205–206; blockages,
Dumoulin, Heinrich, 158 4, 29, 35, 43, 110, 145, 154, 183, 193;
D’Youville Nursing Center, 225 channeling, 89, 185, 186, 187–188,
dysmenorrhea. See under pain 189, 192, 195; cosmic, 32, 33, 100,
174, 189; defined, 4, 9, 28, 113;
Eastern religions: Christians guard divine, 54, 78; fields, 4, 5, 6, 29, 33,
against, 14, 58, 77, 89–90; defined, 34, 42, 71, 78, 122–123, 157, 176,
68; fear of investigating, 19, 46, 68, 191–193, 195, 197, 198, 210; flows,
70, 74, 89; labels CAM as illegitimate, 4, 29, 35–36, 58, 78, 126, 128, 142,
2, 45, 59, 69, 72, 76, 91, 104; less 146, 154, 181, 184, 185, 188, 191–192,
threatening than term Hindu, 55, 56, 197, 205–206; frequencies, 33, 34,
80, 105, 162, 179, 211; positive views 45, 99, 163, 169, 199; life-force, 28,
of, 174, 206, 215; romanticized, 56, 34, 77, 78, 83, 95, 156, 162–163,
Index 305
182, 189, 191; magnetic, 29, 32, 120, 200, 201, 204, 209, 219; physician-
147, 160, 168, 169; matter and, 4, patient relationship, 204–205, 209,
6–7, 30, 93–94, 97; moon, 28, 32, 47; 217; religion and, 201–202, 208;
patterns, 6, 32, 185; safety, 135–136, self-determination, 18, 21, 200,
166; scientific language, 110; sexual, 201, 203, 204, 219, 228; therapeutic
47, 50, 187–188, 191; spiritual, 4–5, misconception, 209; truth in
28, 32, 33, 54, 71, 75, 100, 160, 191 advertising, 216. See also informed
(see also power: spiritual); subtle/ consent; vulnerable populations
putative, 5, 6, 35, 42, 126, 192; sun, Ethics of Consent, 201
28, 47, 48, 53–54, 83; suprahuman, Europe, 1, 7, 22, 28, 34, 48, 141, 143;
22, 220; transfer, 33, 34, 83, 136, 181, France, 117, 122, 131; Germany,
192, 193; universal, 76, 78, 180, 184, 30–31, 34, 55, 70, 117, 131, 158, 202;
185, 186, 188, 198, 206; veritable/ Great Britain, 48, 81, 131, 133, 144,
physical and, 5, 6, 126; vibrations, 5, 165, 201, 213; Ireland, 11, 158; Italy,
6, 28, 33, 34, 37, 45, 94, 99, 169, 185, 144, 161; Switzerland, 72
195, 199; vortexes, 47, 168, 189, 190. evangelicals, 1; container-contents
See also animal magnetism; chakras; language of, 77, 80, 90; defined, 14;
electricity; Innate Intelligence; ki; experience emphasis of, 65; fear of
kundalini; meridians; nadis; prana; investigating non-Christian religions
qi; vital force; yin-yang by, 19, 46, 56, 58, 68–69, 70, 74, 89;
energy medicine, 21, 124, 175, 179–199; fruits standard of, 19, 69–70, 75–76,
Christian critiques of, 91; Christian 86–88, 106, 212; language emphasis
use of, 78, 196; with other CAM, 100, of, 60–65, 77–78, 79–80, 90, 106;
101, 218. See also Healing Touch, legitimacy emphasis of, 68–70, 71,
massage, Reiki, Therapeutic Touch 77, 79, 89, 91, 92, 93, 102, 104–105,
Enlightenment, 8, 68 108, 110, 211, 212; metaphysics and,
enlightenment (awakening), 37, 40, 44, 92–93, 107, 227–228, 234n44;
45, 50, 51, 158, 174, 185, 186, 187, popular culture and, 14, 76–77;
215–216; Buddhist, 37, 158, 185, purity emphasis of, 14, 16, 44, 202;
186, 187; meditation for, 40, 43; yoga reasoning by, 67, 68, 207–208; roots
for, 45, 50, 51, 174, 215, 216. See also standard of, 19, 45, 57, 69–75, 81–86,
salvation 91, 105, 180, 207, 211. See also beliefs;
Enomiya-Lassalle, Hugo, 158 Bible; pentecostals; pluralism;
epilepsy, 114, 150 practices; Protestants; and specific
Epperly, Bruce, 78, 182, 210 health-care practices
Epperly, Katherine, 78, 182, 210 EvenBetterNow Natural Health
ethics, 200; abuse, 202, 209; biomedical, Solutions, 166
18, 21, 202, 203; CAM, 27, 28, Every Body Has Parasites, 167
165, 198; conflicts of interest, evidence-based medicine. See under
169–170; fiduciary responsibility, biomedicine
209; manipulation, 17, 21, 201, exercise: Christian use of, 56, 57, 58, 62,
204; personal autonomy, 18, 21, 77; not religion, 46, 50, 52, 77,
306 In de x
Nancy, 212; Rachel, 175; Sharon, 215; InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 71,
Smith, Dr., 206–207, 211–212; Taylor, 103
Dr., 68; Tess, 32 iridology, 32, 75, 160
informed consent, 18, 201–212; irritable bowel syndrome, 150
battery, 203, 204, 211; camouflage, Isacowitz, Rael, 58
194–195, 199, 205–212, 216–217; Iyengar, B. K. S., 48
deception, 17, 21, 134, 180, 200, 216,
217, 229; fraud, 17, 21, 134, 200, Jackson, Quinton, 85
216–217, 229; individual standard, Jackson, Robert, 222
202; material information, 200, Jacob’s Ladder, 100
201, 202, 206, 208, 217; negligence, Jacobson, Michael, 70
203; professional-practice standard, Jainism, 28, 40, 47
201–202; reasonable-person standard, Japanese-Americans, 181
201–202, 203; religious information Jaramillo, F., 84
disclosure, 205–212, 216, 228–229; Jehovah’s Witnesses, 203–204
risk disclosure, 133, 134, 136, 138, Jentoft, Peggy, 136, 183–184, 185, 186
203; self-censorship, 17, 21, 199, Jeremiah, David, 140
200, 206–209, 214–215, 229; unfair Jesus (Christ): added to non-Christian
business practices, 216, 217. See also religions, 59, 62, 158; Christian
decision making; ethics; safety; tort doctrine of, 14–15, 44, 107; modeling
law; vulnerable populations healing, 157, 179, 181; modeling
Innate Intelligence, 4, 35, 93–105, 208, suffering, 158; as standard, 70; used
212. See also chiropractic; energy, to critique CAM, 69, 72, 73–74, 102;
vital validating orthodoxy, 45–46, 61, 63,
Insight Meditation Society, 209 65, 75, 77–82, 84–85, 87–88, 103–104,
insomnia, 125, 126, 150 160, 208
Institute of Integrated Medicines, 116 Jews, 3, 15, 28, 34, 157–158
integrative medicine, 2, 3, 12, 26, 112, John of the Cross, 38
115, 154, 174, 205–206. See also Johnston, Robert, 227
hospitals Jois, K. Pattabhi, 48
International Association of Reiki Jones, Rhonda, 87–88
Professionals, 189 Jordan, River, 207
International Chiropractors’ Journal of Alternative and Complementary
Association, 101 Medicine, 145
International Society for the Study Journal of Christian Nursing, 76
of Subtle Energies and Energy Journal of Professional Nursing, 211
Medicine, 42, 124 Journal of the American Chiropractic
Internet: Amazon.com, 59; Beliefnet. Association, 99
com, 161; for distant healing, 32, Journal of the American Medical
184; as health-information source, Association (JAMA), 12, 123, 127, 133,
1, 32, 161–162, 168, 184, 194, 217, 153
218; Yahoo, 59, 161. See also media; Journal of the American Osteopathic
publishing Association, 29
310 In de x
27; Christian critiques of, 72, 139; Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine,
Christianity & Martial Arts Power, 26, 145, 153
77; Christian Martial Arts, 77; McCoy, Matthew, 205
Christian use of, 62, 77, 80, 85, 87, McDonald, William, 98
176; Christian versions of, 80–81, McDonald’s, 41
84; in gyms, 175–176; hapkido, McFarlane, Stewart, 213
81; Hwa Rang, 81; judo, 35, 72, 81, McGuire, Meredith, 212
176; jujitsu, 72; kempo, 35; kendo, McLuhan, Marshall, 76
72; kickboxing, 35; kung fu, 175; McSherry, H. L., 102
Martial Arts & Yoga, 72; Martial Arts Mebane, Sister Mary, 85, 210
the Christian Way, 84; mixed martial media, 41, 76, 167, 175, 184, 206;
arts (MMA), 85, 87, 176–177; Associated Press, 59; BBC, 118; CNN,
ninjas, 176; Pokémon, 176; practices 57; Los Angeles Times, 50; New York
changing beliefs, 213; Purpose American, 50; New York Times, 29,
Driven Martial Arts, 80; qi in, 36, 77; 144, 214; Time, 41, 42; TV/film, 42,
religion and, 26–27; in schools, 176; 50, 64, 100, 101, 118, 129, 176, 218
self-defense, 27, 175, 176; tae kwon Medical Acupuncture for Physicians
do, 73, 81, 87, 176, 177; Taoism Program, 145
and, 35–36, 69, 78; Teenage Mutant Medicare, 29, 225
Ninja Turtles, 176; usage, 176; with meditation, 2; Buddhist, 7, 10, 25, 27,
other CAM, 57, 191. See also karate; 37–40, 42, 57, 71, 88, 115, 134, 158,
qigong; t’ai chi 209, 211; in businesses, 39, 172, 173,
Martial Arts Ministries, 84 209; centering, 58, 80, 193; chanting,
massage: Christian use of, 75, 78, 109; 45, 51, 56, 58, 61, 62, 173, 185;
emotionally satisfying, 165–166; Christian critiques of, 11, 68, 70–71,
informed consent, 211; medical, 175; 72, 86, 139; Christian use of, 59, 86,
professionalized, 171; shiatsu, 22, 211, 214; Christian versions of, 38,
36, 160; spiritual, 157, 175; studies, 45–46, 60, 62–63, 78, 87–88, 158–159;
13, 130, 131, 150, 152; Thai, 54; government and, 221, 223, 224,
usage, 12–13; with other CAM, 33, 225, 226; Hindu, 41–42, 157–158; in
98, 122, 163, 198, 199. See also energy hospitals, 39–40, 174–175; informed
medicine consent, 206, 209, 211; mu-shin
matching law, 137 (no-mind), 25, 158; religion and, 26,
materialism. See under worldviews 174, 175, 223, 224, 225, 226; safety,
Matteo Ricci Foundation, 144 133–135; in schools, 174, 177, 224;
Matteo Ricci School of Acupuncture scientific language, 114, 125, 126,
and Chinese Medicine, 144 127, 206, 209; sitting, 25, 38, 39, 41,
Maurer, Edward, 99 62, 88, 100; studies, 7, 13, 114–115;
Mayo Clinic, 107, 128, 218; on Three-Minute Meditator, 40; Tibetan,
acupuncture, 144, 145, 147–148, 153; 39, 42; usage, 12–13; with other
on meditation, 7, 127, 175; religion CAM, 6, 36, 57–58, 72, 186, 193, 199,
and, 26 210, 213, 214; yoga, 45, 46–47,
312 In de x
National Center for Complementary 110, 140, 212; defined, 68; fear of
and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), investigating, 19, 68, 70, 89; labels
131, 218; on acupuncture, 144, CAM as illegitimate, 2, 14, 56, 63, 64,
147, 149; on energy, 5; funding, 75, 76, 79, 104–105, 108–109, 171;
11–12, 225, 226; on homeopathy, science as opposite of, 19, 20, 68, 93,
119; medicine defined by, 29; on 106, 228. See also Eastern religions;
meditation, 114, 125; on Reiki, 124, metaphysics, Western; mysticism;
125; on t’ai chi, 128; on yoga, 125 occult; spirituality
National Certification Board for New Age Journal, 171
Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, New Age Medicine, 104
171 New Age Movement and the Biblical
National Certification Commission for Worldview, 76
Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, Newport, John, 76
171 new religious movements, 180, 213
National Chiropractic Malpractice New Thought, 48, 93, 115
Insurance Company Group, 95, 100 New Thought Accreditation
National Expert Meeting on Qi Gong and Commission, 115
Tai Chi Consensus Report, 206 New York University, 191, 197
National Health Interview Survey, 194 NIH (National Institutes of Health), 11,
National League for Nursing, 197 12. 115, 127, 147, 148, 206, 225
Native Americans, 7, 8, 108, 139, nirvana, 37, 187
221; therapeutic imperialism and, nocturnal enuresis, 130, 151
226–227 North American Nursing Diagnosis
natural remedies: legitimate because Association, 197
from nature, 5, 91, 122, 185; purer Nuremberg Code, 202
than biomedicine, 1, 2, 9, 11, 92, 144, Nurses Christian Fellowship, 71
161, 162, 164; usage, 12 Nurse’s Handbook of Alternative &
Nature, 117–118 Complementary Therapies, 120, 126,
nature, 30, 33, 43, 68; cures, 8, 48 135, 205, 210
naturopathy, 33; Christian use of, nutrition, 12, 34–35, 128–130; Breuss
109, 160, 162–163, 167; Clinical Cancer Cure, 34; Budwig protocol,
Naturopathy, 33; in hospitals, 175; 34, 161; Christian critiques of, 11;
studies, 13; usage, 13, 120; with other Christian use of, 160, 162–163;
CAM, 101 Gerson therapy, 34, 83, 129–130;
nausea/vomiting, 132, 148, 150, 151, Gerson Therapy, 34; Hallelujah Diet,
153, 154 34, 83; juicing, 34, 83, 160, 162, 163,
Navigators, 160 166–167; Kelley program, 34, 83;
Needle, Dr., 169 macrobiotics, 36–37, 100, 129–130,
Nelson, Leah, 62 131; metaphysics and, 34–35;
neuropathy, 116 organic, 34, 161; raw foods, 34, 163;
neuroscience, 2, 6, 7 studies, 127, 128–130; vegan, 28,
New Age: Christians guard against, 129; vegetarian, 8, 13, 28, 129, 162;
14, 16, 58, 65, 68–69, 86, 89–90, wheatgrass, 34; whole-food,
314 In d e x
pendulums, 32, 168, 185, 198 physical, 175; political, 10, 48, 227;
pentecostals: biomedicine critiques by, sexual, 47, 50, 187–188; spiritual, 47,
159, 212; CAM critiques by, 71–73, 71, 73, 74–75, 77–78, 174, 175, 183,
91, 108; CAM use by, 18, 71, 91, 103, 186. See also class, social; gender;
107, 212–213; defined, 14, 232n20. race/ethnicity
See also divine healing; evangelicals Power Healing, 76
Pen Ts’ao, 25 Poyen, Charles, 28
People’s Organization of Community practices: changing beliefs, 17, 19,
Acupuncture, 207–208 21, 44, 57, 173, 204, 212, 213–216,
Peretti, Frank, 68 217, 218–219, 228; not religion, 81;
personal autonomy. See under ethics religious, 22, 23–24, 46, 60–65, 220,
Peterson, Eugenie, 50 221; ritual, 2, 27, 28, 53, 60, 181, 185;
Pfeifer, Samuel, 72 sacramental, 23, 60, 78, 157. See also
Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy, 120 beliefs; body; religion; worldviews;
physical culture, 48, 57 worship
physical therapy, 58, 126, 150, 152, 175 PraiseMoves, 63–64; PowerMoves Kids,
Physicians Committee for Responsible 64; PraiseMoves, 64; PraiseMoves Kids,
Medicine, 129 64
Physicians Resource Council, 139 prana: Christian critiques of, 70;
Pilates, 52, 57–58, 61, 62, 101 Christian relabeling of, 62, 78;
Pilates, Joseph, 57 defined, 47; pranayama, 47, 61, 133,
placebo effect, 114, 116, 117, 119, 123, 173; spiritual energy labeled, 4, 6, 28,
151, 152–153, 154 32, 33, 34, 95, 189, 191–193, 198. See
plants, 23, 33, 34, 122, 184. See also also energy, vital; yoga
herbalism; nutrition prayer: CAM with, 13, 62, 93, 160–162,
pluralism: religious, 15, 16, 17, 211, 212; chiropractic and, 93, 94,
31, 43–44, 59, 93, 139, 180, 228; 100, 102, 106–107; meditation and,
therapeutic, 14, 17, 18, 90, 107, 111, 38, 88, 206; school, 222–224; studies,
137, 156, 160, 216, 218, 228. See also 7, 107, 127, 226; yoga, 53–54, 59–61,
beliefs; practices 62–63, 64, 65. See also divine healing;
PM Yoga, 65 hands: praying
Pocket Atlas of Chinese Medicine, 146 Pray with Purpose, 38
polarity therapy, 11, 36 Prem, Baba, 55
politics. See under power Principles and Practice of Medicine, 9, 144
Polk, Branda, 61 Protestants: Anglican, 210–211;
Post-Graduate School of Homeopathics, Assemblies of God, 56, 108; Baptist,
32 57, 58, 61, 62, 104, 173; Calvinist,
Poulin, Fernan, 6 8, 156; cessationist, 8, 14, 71, 73,
power: empowerment, 177, 181, 187; 103, 162; Charismatic, 10, 14, 71,
gender and, 21, 157, 164, 176, 180, 159, 232n20; Church of Christ, 162;
193, 196–197; imbalances, 17, Episcopal, 60, 159, 215; Holiness,
204, 219; mental, 42–43, 186, 191; 159; Jesus people, 10; Methodist,
316 In de x
spirits: channeling, 8, 29, 31, 89, 93, 17, 91, 164, 165–166, 177. See also
183; defined, 4; harmful, 25, 28, 85, body; compassion; pain
142; human, 99; plant, 28; universal, Sullivan, Winnifred, 220
40, 47, 180. See also body-mind-spirit; Sun Salutation (Surya Namaskara), 48,
demons; spirituality; universe 51, 53, 60, 62, 63. See also asanas;
Spiritual Emergence Network, 133 yoga
spiritualism, 8, 29, 93 supernatural, 8, 9, 23, 28, 47–48, 107,
spirituality: CAM and, 42–43, 48, 49, 139
56, 87, 95, 100, 174; defined, 4, 24; superstition, 8, 25, 56, 68, 71, 73, 88,
desire for, 10, 157–158; holistic, 43; 142
is religion, 19, 22, 24, 26–27, 112, Supreme Court, 9, 217, 221, 222, 223,
180; not religion, 2, 21, 39, 53, 54, 224. See also Constitution; court cases
65, 139, 145, 188–189, 191, 199, 206; surveys: CAM usage, 1–2, 12, 13, 56,
safety, 131–136; scientific language, 98–99, 133, 143, 164, 175, 194;
195, 198, 206–209; universal, 19, nutrition, 129; religious identity,
22, 24, 25, 46, 53, 59, 228. See also 13–14, 24, 102; use of, 18, 107–108,
energy, vital; metaphysics, Western; 126, 239n32
mysticism; New Age Suzuki, D. T., 25
sports, 39, 50, 56, 62–63, 77, 206; Swamiji (Divine Life Society), 53
combat, 175–176 Swatmarama, Swami, 133
Ssu-ma Ch’ien, 142 Swedenborg, Emanuel, 30
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 164 Swedenborgianism, 30–31
Star Wars, 4, 176 Syman, Stefanie, 56
Stein, Diane, 136, 184, 186, 187, 196, systematic reviews, 113; acupuncture,
210, 213 116–117, 148–154; homeopathy, 118,
Steinecke, Richard, 208 119; meditation, 114–115; t’ai chi,
Stewart, Walter, 118 127; Therapeutic Touch, 123; yoga,
Still, Andrew Taylor, 29 114. See also Cochrane Database of
stress: Buddhism and, 37, 38–39; Systematic Reviews; scientific studies
causes of, 37, 79, 160, 170;
geopathic, 168; not religion, 38–39, t’ai chi (T’ai Chi Ch’üan, Taijiquan),
172–173, 174, 194, 195, 209, 214; 35–36; Christian critiques of, 62, 69,
relief, 65, 80, 98, 101, 128; studies, 139; Christian use of, 69, 89; elderly
116, 124–125, 126, 226. See also and, 128, 176, 206; religion and, 26,
relaxation 206; safety, 128; scientific language,
Stress Reduction Clinic, 38 206; studies, 69, 114, 126, 127–128;
stroke, 133, 150 Taoism and, 36, 69; usage, 13, 23, 36;
Subtle Energies, 124 What Is “Tai Chi”?, 145; with other
suffering: Buddhism and, 37, 39, CAM, 99, 214. See also martial arts
158–159, 185; Christian valorization Takata, Hawayo, 181
of, 60, 155–157; Hinduism and, 41, Taoism, 1, 19, 22, 155, 231n1;
46; motivates CAM use, 1, 3, 8, 15, acupuncture and, 20, 139–140, 141,
320 In de x